NK. A regional issue
-
Q: Mr. President, thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power? Bush: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake in whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. -- indeed. and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html[^] -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Chris Losinger wrote: indeed, and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: See, it's a global experiment. We take out Iraq, and disarm Saddam, showing that action stops the threat from that area. Then we ignore NK, and show people what happens when we do nothing. Then when it hits home (possibly litterally), the peace-mongers and anti-war/love thy enemy zealots will realize the consequence of no action taken. Then we can have yes/no questions about our use of force, and have simple examples that the narrow minded can understand. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Chris Losinger wrote: indeed, and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: See, it's a global experiment. We take out Iraq, and disarm Saddam, showing that action stops the threat from that area. Then we ignore NK, and show people what happens when we do nothing. Then when it hits home (possibly litterally), the peace-mongers and anti-war/love thy enemy zealots will realize the consequence of no action taken. Then we can have yes/no questions about our use of force, and have simple examples that the narrow minded can understand. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
you assume GWBCo has the ability to think four steps ahead. crazy. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: indeed, and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: See, it's a global experiment. We take out Iraq, and disarm Saddam, showing that action stops the threat from that area. Then we ignore NK, and show people what happens when we do nothing. Then when it hits home (possibly litterally), the peace-mongers and anti-war/love thy enemy zealots will realize the consequence of no action taken. Then we can have yes/no questions about our use of force, and have simple examples that the narrow minded can understand. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
Q: Mr. President, thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power? Bush: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake in whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. -- indeed. and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html[^] -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Q: Mr. President, thank you. Another hot spot is North Korea. If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power? Bush: This is a regional issue. I say regional issue because there's a lot of countries that have got a direct stake in whether or not North Korea has nuclear weapons. -- indeed. and that region now includes New York, Chicago and DC: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html[^] -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
Torch NY??? How's the missle gonna get that far? These people are so full of it. In 1-2 months, our military will be able to fully handle NK. I assume that's why Bush is hesitant on unilaterally taking them out. If we can get China or Japan to help handle the situation, then thats all the better. BTW, wouldn't a missle defense system be good to have right now????
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Torch NY??? How's the missle gonna get that far? These people are so full of it. In 1-2 months, our military will be able to fully handle NK. I assume that's why Bush is hesitant on unilaterally taking them out. If we can get China or Japan to help handle the situation, then thats all the better. BTW, wouldn't a missle defense system be good to have right now????
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: BTW, wouldn't a missle defense system be good to have right now???? not one that doesn't work and won't even be required to be tested before deployment (whatever "deployment" means when they deployed system doesn't actually work). and, i'm not sure a MDS would do much against a nuke in a shipping container. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
In the case of NK, everybody could perhaps agree for a preventive war.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
KaЯl wrote: In the case of NK, everybody could perhaps agree for a preventive war. By the time there was consensus wine would turn to vinegar, and half the world would say, "all they want is food, fuel, Japan, and, South Korea - so why not just let them have it?" Mike
-
Torch NY??? How's the missle gonna get that far? These people are so full of it. In 1-2 months, our military will be able to fully handle NK. I assume that's why Bush is hesitant on unilaterally taking them out. If we can get China or Japan to help handle the situation, then thats all the better. BTW, wouldn't a missle defense system be good to have right now????
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Jason Henderson wrote: In 1-2 months, our military will be able to fully handle NK. I assume that's why Bush is hesitant on unilaterally taking them out. Are you suggesting that a war, either pre-emptive or responsive, is an acceptable solution?
-
KaЯl wrote: In the case of NK, everybody could perhaps agree for a preventive war. By the time there was consensus wine would turn to vinegar, and half the world would say, "all they want is food, fuel, Japan, and, South Korea - so why not just let them have it?" Mike
* NK recognizes having chemical and biological warfares * NK recognizes having a nuclear program * NK doesn't want to disarm and say openly the opposite * NK has no UN inspectors on its soil and refuses any control. * NK is threatening openly Japan and US, by even firing missiles in their direction. * NK furnishes weapons to rogue states, as yemen, a current US ally. The current contestation groups together a lot of people who are against a war for now with very distinct, even opposite reasons. Some of these reasons eliminated, the number of opponents would mathematically be less. But the case made by the US hawks is so laughable that an overhelming majority of people around the World don't believe it, even if their governments are obliged under a considerable pressure (diplomatic, financial, sometimes military) from the US to ploy. The US pressures are currently creating a lot of instable situations in countries like Turkey, Egypt or Pakistan, forcing their governments to openly oppose to their people. GWB is playing with fire, thinks he's to cleaver to be burned, but doesn't realize he could set the fire to the entire house.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
-
-
Jason Henderson wrote: In some cases it is, in some it is not. How about this case? What do you suppose the folks in Seoul would say?
South Korea is another reason why we have to take the NK issue a little differently than Iraq. Anything we do will be taken up with Seoul first. Why do you think we have 38,000 troops in SK? Are they there as oppressors/occupiers or are they there for the defense of the country? We are there to defend and protect South Korea. If they want us out, we'll leave. But NK, isn't just threatening the south, they are threatening us directly and all of their neighbors. I think the South Koreans recognize this and if the north keeps it up, we will have to defend ourselves (pre-emptively).
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
* NK recognizes having chemical and biological warfares * NK recognizes having a nuclear program * NK doesn't want to disarm and say openly the opposite * NK has no UN inspectors on its soil and refuses any control. * NK is threatening openly Japan and US, by even firing missiles in their direction. * NK furnishes weapons to rogue states, as yemen, a current US ally. The current contestation groups together a lot of people who are against a war for now with very distinct, even opposite reasons. Some of these reasons eliminated, the number of opponents would mathematically be less. But the case made by the US hawks is so laughable that an overhelming majority of people around the World don't believe it, even if their governments are obliged under a considerable pressure (diplomatic, financial, sometimes military) from the US to ploy. The US pressures are currently creating a lot of instable situations in countries like Turkey, Egypt or Pakistan, forcing their governments to openly oppose to their people. GWB is playing with fire, thinks he's to cleaver to be burned, but doesn't realize he could set the fire to the entire house.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean,when you're going up against a crazed dictator,you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than 2 years before you guys pitched in against Hitler,but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons
So, why don't we let the French take the lead on this one since the USA has so terribly screwed up on Iraq? Mike
-
South Korea is another reason why we have to take the NK issue a little differently than Iraq. Anything we do will be taken up with Seoul first. Why do you think we have 38,000 troops in SK? Are they there as oppressors/occupiers or are they there for the defense of the country? We are there to defend and protect South Korea. If they want us out, we'll leave. But NK, isn't just threatening the south, they are threatening us directly and all of their neighbors. I think the South Koreans recognize this and if the north keeps it up, we will have to defend ourselves (pre-emptively).
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: defend ourselves (pre-emptively). it would have been much funnier with <oxymoron> tags. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
Jason Henderson wrote: defend ourselves (pre-emptively). it would have been much funnier with <oxymoron> tags. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
South Korea is another reason why we have to take the NK issue a little differently than Iraq. Anything we do will be taken up with Seoul first. Why do you think we have 38,000 troops in SK? Are they there as oppressors/occupiers or are they there for the defense of the country? We are there to defend and protect South Korea. If they want us out, we'll leave. But NK, isn't just threatening the south, they are threatening us directly and all of their neighbors. I think the South Koreans recognize this and if the north keeps it up, we will have to defend ourselves (pre-emptively).
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Jason Henderson wrote: What would you do if you saw a guy with a gun standing outside your house just waiting for you to go to sleep? Shoot the SOB before he shoots you! I think you're supposed to invite him in, hug him and ask him what you could give him to make him go away. If you shoot him, you might offend your neighbor. Mike
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Anything we do will be taken up with Seoul first. Five minutes notice should be sufficient.
-
-
Seriously, I don't see what we gain by all the bluster. We're obviously much more powerful and we'll "win" if it ever comes to war. We don't have anything to prove. Why does this administration sometimes act like an adolescent male?