Hussein is a lunatic, attacking anybody and everybody with whatever weapons are at hand. He was givin ample time to comply, yet didn't. We're at war to disarm him by force. Your useless post did NOTHING to back your genius friend's assertion that we are merely freeing the people of Iraq from their tyrannical regime.
colonel
Golden Member
- Apr 22, 2001
- 1,777
- 18
- 81
If you value human life you will agree that there is no benefit from starting a war that has a high possibility of using nukes against cities.
well I think we value Americans lives, the rest of the world can be bomb with friendly fire, first food add some bomb and you get = Bush
well I think we value Americans lives, the rest of the world can be bomb with friendly fire, first food add some bomb and you get = Bush
Forget NK, let's see China show they belong in the world arena and deal with it. That nation has been cowardly hiding during this whole scenario. They better act soon or Japan will build their own nukes.
i definitely think we should. if nk can get away by using the nuke as a deterrent, you will see many other rogue countries scrambling to get nukes as well to "protect" themselves if they think that the u.s. will attack them.
i always thought the u.s. should have gone into north korea first before they are able to fully develop their weapons before they went into iraq.
i always thought the u.s. should have gone into north korea first before they are able to fully develop their weapons before they went into iraq.
This is why I hate that argument about treating all dictators the same. You CANNOT do that. Different situations require different actions. In NK's case we need to get Russia and China (especially China) to step up to the plate and quit talking out both sides of their mouths. They have not put full diplomatic effort into North Korea like they already had done for Iraq during the last 12 years.
He's obviously sane enough to have staid in power for a very long time, even during hard times such as the sanctions. Before the sanctions, he also led one of the more prosperous countries in the middle east, especially considering its size.
Iran and Kuwait, with a few provocation missiles towards Israel is "anybody and everybody" now?
Some of the more nasty specimens thereof brought to him courtesy of the US of A.
Actually, when he started taking real steps towards complying, the US decided that it was time to launch the attack.
Well, that obviously isn't true, is it? The primary reason is not to free the people of Iraq, nor to disarm Iraq. It's about establishing the US as the prime power player in global politics. Disarmament was the first justification, but it became clear that disarmament wouldn't justify an immediate war, so it was subsequently discarded. Instead we will see the pledge of the Iraqis being increasedly used as justification for the war. Hopefully there will at least be a real effort to rebuild Iraq properly, with the same kind of aid levels given to Israel and Egypt.
Uhh, since when is sanity a requirement to staying in power? A lunatic can use fear even better than a sane person to stay in power.
Exactly how many countries is enough?
I haven't seen definitive documentation of it... I'm not saying US didn't for sure, but if so that was a long time ago and things change.
Complying required him to show the inspectors where the weapons were. Instead the inspectors had to find them before he would destroy them, and even then, only cuz of the troops sitting at his door. Read Res 1441 again, you seemed to have missed some requirements.
[/quote]
Yea.. my dad has fought in the Korean War and he said the same thing. One time, he was at a post with a mounted machine gun mowing down North Koreans and they just kept coming and coming. Swams of them overtook my father's area, but he got the hell out of there. His buddies weren't so lucky as most died. He opposes attacking North Korea, because it could easily turn into a disaster.
What has that to do with anything? Furthermore, I have yet to see a specification for what "done" is supposed to mean here.
Disarm Iraq of what? Why?
Given that Iraq has never had any weapons that could pose a significant threat towards the US, this is an odd statement.
It means that your statement is based on nothing. It was even false as they have always said the reason is disarmament. The other reasons were in addition to disarmament, not instead of. I base what the plan is on what they have been saying for months, not speculation. And if they go back on their word, then I will be one of the first ones to jump their sh1t.
How is that? I can't see how it addresses the basis of my statement in any way.
"What they say" goes against the actual situation in the real world.
As in, you have no proof. You are speculating. See below.
[/quote]
Not speculation eh? So you can see in the future? How can it go against the actual situation in the real world when "it" hasn't happened yet. They say they are going to leave when Iraq is stable. You can't say they won't as a fact because it hasn't happened yet!
colonel
Golden Member
- Apr 22, 2001
- 1,777
- 18
- 81
we blew that time, long before, China will never help us because US is backing Taiwan, if you remember the spy plane, US was ready to sell nuclear sub to Taiwan ; China hold the crew of the plane and Senator Mc Cain said that the real issue was the sell of the sub. is Politics , politics....
well, for our sake they need to try harder. I don't believe they have put a full diplomatic effort into this. They may still be able to repair that and get China on board with it. It's worth trying.
What are you talking about?
What does the future have to do with Iraq's lack of weapons which could pose a significant threat to the US?
That's news to me. The most I've seen is an unqualified "we will stay as long as necessary".
Furthermore, define "stable" -- Iraq was more than stable during Saddam's rule, for example. Would it be sufficient to replace one dictator with another, as long as it led to stability?
I'm talking about when you said this: "It's about establishing the US as the prime power player in global politics." That is speculation and is not based on anything. They have always stated that the goal was disarmament.
Iraq admitted they had the weapons, so how is there a lack of weapons? Iraq said they destroyed them. The entire UN agreed to 1441 which said the burden of proof was on Iraq. Iraq had to prove they destroyed them. This would be easily done by records, taking inspectors to the sites where they destroyed them, etc.
Oh god...
I'd say Morph understands the point perfectly. And your cost benefit analysis proves Morph's point.
Under the current administration we only attack nations that are easily defeated and have something we want. Don't people see the hypocrisy in that?
No, that's not why we invaded Iraq. It is to disarm them and freeing the people is added bonus. Iraq has a history of supporting and providing safe haven for terrorists that are Anti-American. NK does not. Oil has nothing to do with it. However you are right in that how hard it is to win is definately a factor and should be. It is not beneficial to go in to "free" their people when most of the Korean pennisula would be destroyed in doing so. We would not be able to fight the same way we are in Iraq. In Iraq we are avoiding civilian casualties as best as we can. In NK, we wouldn't be able to do that.
That's what international politics is all about. It's pure power and self interest. If something good happens along the way, then great. That's the way it's been since the beginning of time up until now. What is so shocking or hypocritical about it? Step out into the real world some time.
I think you are dead wrong there. The Chinese do not want to see an ever-increasing NK nuclear stockpile any more than the U.S. does...not because they fear NK specifically, but because they fear the consequences that development would have on the rest of the region. Does anyone think China wants to see Japan, SK, and Taiwan inevitably develop their own nuclear programs to counter NK's?? Hell no. Right now the Chinese are just playing a little game of chicken...you can bet that their nonchalant public attitude is a far cry from their public concerns.
This whole thread is getting ridiculous! We let this worm slide in '92. Since 9-11 we've been committed to disarming him. We have NOT deviated from this course since then, despite all the opposition at home and abroad.
North Korea WILL be dealt with. We tried like hell to use "diplomacy". That has been our first choice. It's the UN Security council threatening more sanctions, and whose fault will it be if they're implemented? Whose fault will it be if this comes down to force?
North Korea WILL be dealt with. We tried like hell to use "diplomacy". That has been our first choice. It's the UN Security council threatening more sanctions, and whose fault will it be if they're implemented? Whose fault will it be if this comes down to force?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter