POLL: Regime change in North Korea through force?

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Oh god... I've seen this statement all over the place. Stable = When Saddam's regime is removed and the Iraqi people have the infrastructure and government set up to govern themselves and provide security for themselves. Like what we're doing in Afgahnistan.

So I guess we are going to install a mayor of Baghdad and call it a day . . .

Um... how do you go from my statement to yours? Infrastructure and government is quite a bit more than a mayor of Bagdad.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Ornery
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?

That's not trying like hell. 17 UN resolutions is trying like hell. I think they should try harder. The cost is much greater than Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Our version
U.S. Military Activities: The United States military is moving into the next phase of its work in Afghanistan. By February 2003, American military forces will expend 75 percent of their effort on reconstruction of security services and supporting civil reconstruction. These activities will help to create stable conditions so that Afghans can provide their own security and continue to rebuild their country.

Political: The U.S. helped the Afghan people end the Taliban's tyrannical rule and is continuing to help Afghans structure a new political system that includes women and minorities. We provided logistical support for the emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002 that established the current government. At the Loya Jirga, 220 of 1700 participants were women; one year earlier, women were still required to be accompanied by a male relative when outside the home. The U.S. will continue to support strengthening the central government under President Karzai through technical assistance, such as building a $10.5 million transmission facility for Afghan national radio.

close up
Surveying what has been, charitably, a challenging and difficult year, Samar -- Afghanistan?s former minister of women?s affairs and a participant in the June loya jirga (grand tribal council) -- said Afghanistan?s infrastructure remains depleted and in serious disrepair. The country?s civil society and central government remain fragile, she added, threatened by both a lack of strong international support and the continued strength of local warlords and religious fundamentalists.

?We are not in a position to sustain ourselves,? Samar said in an interview just weeks before the one-year anniversary of the November downfall of the Taliban. ?We could go a week [without outside assistance].?

For its part, the United States has denied that its ongoing military efforts in Afghanistan include resolving disputes between warring factions. B-52 bombings in western Afghanistan in early December, U.S. officials said, were due to attacks on U.S. special forces in the region and had nothing to do with fighting between forces loyal to Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat province and an ethnic Tajik, and Amanullah Khan, a rival warlord who is Pashtun.

But in November, New York-based Human Rights Watch charged that the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan support Khan and that he commands forces responsible for numerous human rights abuses. At the very least, Butler said, a number of Afghans are likely to view the U.S. bombing ?cynically? as a show of support for Khan.


You are absolutely right that infrastructure and government are a lot more than mayor of Baghdad . . . actually we intend to create a Proconsul of Iraq . . . then later a mayor of Baghdad.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Our version
U.S. Military Activities: The United States military is moving into the next phase of its work in Afghanistan. By February 2003, American military forces will expend 75 percent of their effort on reconstruction of security services and supporting civil reconstruction. These activities will help to create stable conditions so that Afghans can provide their own security and continue to rebuild their country.

Political: The U.S. helped the Afghan people end the Taliban's tyrannical rule and is continuing to help Afghans structure a new political system that includes women and minorities. We provided logistical support for the emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002 that established the current government. At the Loya Jirga, 220 of 1700 participants were women; one year earlier, women were still required to be accompanied by a male relative when outside the home. The U.S. will continue to support strengthening the central government under President Karzai through technical assistance, such as building a $10.5 million transmission facility for Afghan national radio.

close up
Surveying what has been, charitably, a challenging and difficult year, Samar -- Afghanistan?s former minister of women?s affairs and a participant in the June loya jirga (grand tribal council) -- said Afghanistan?s infrastructure remains depleted and in serious disrepair. The country?s civil society and central government remain fragile, she added, threatened by both a lack of strong international support and the continued strength of local warlords and religious fundamentalists.

?We are not in a position to sustain ourselves,? Samar said in an interview just weeks before the one-year anniversary of the November downfall of the Taliban. ?We could go a week [without outside assistance].?

For its part, the United States has denied that its ongoing military efforts in Afghanistan include resolving disputes between warring factions. B-52 bombings in western Afghanistan in early December, U.S. officials said, were due to attacks on U.S. special forces in the region and had nothing to do with fighting between forces loyal to Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat province and an ethnic Tajik, and Amanullah Khan, a rival warlord who is Pashtun.

But in November, New York-based Human Rights Watch charged that the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan support Khan and that he commands forces responsible for numerous human rights abuses. At the very least, Butler said, a number of Afghans are likely to view the U.S. bombing ?cynically? as a show of support for Khan.


You are absolutely right that infrastructure and government are a lot more than mayor of Baghdad . . . actually we intend to create a Proconsul of Iraq . . . then later a mayor of Baghdad.

Soooo.... what's your point? I never said they were done with Afgahnistan. I said like we're doing in Afgahnistan, i.e. present tense. They aren't just installing a mayor in Afgahnistan and calling it a day. If they had, they wouldn't still be there, would they?

It will be a long crappy process, but that's the way it works.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Morph
That's funny, I hear no one talking about freeing the people of NK from their tyrannical regime. That's why we invaded Iraq, right? But since NK isn't a pushover (and they don't have any oil either), we should say hell with the people and "let them starve to death"? I think I'm understanding now. We Americans are great humanitarians but only when it's convenient and serves a useful purpose for us.

"That's why we invaded Iraq, right?"

Wrong!

• Iraqi Regime has welcomed al Qaeda fighters. Do we risk a 9-11 with NK?
  
• Dropped scuds on Israel...
  
• Hussein was out of UN Compliance for over 10 years! NK ought to have least a few more years to get their act together, right?
  
  
  
• Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, he has invaded his neighbors, he has killed thousands of his own people...
  

NK's people may get to starve for a few years too, as Iraq's people did. Maybe our screwballs on the left will get the picture a little quicker this time around. Maybe the UN will be a little more decisive.

Exactly right.

And now we are finding Iraqs weapons that they did not have...

 

[tec699]

You guys are like little babies!

-Here ya go guys... I warmed your milk the way you all like it.

:Q

 

[wanders]

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.

It's based on the US National Security Strategy document, as well as the stated opinions and goals of many key members of the current administration.

They have always stated that the goal was disarmament.

True, the justification for war has been disarmament. However, there is no urgent need for disarmament. The US administration also choose to terminate a working disarmament process by launching a war at this time.

What does the future have to do with Iraq's lack of weapons which could pose a significant threat to the US?

Iraq admitted they had the weapons, so how is there a lack of weapons? [..]

You need to reread the bit of text you just quoted.

I've seen this statement all over the place.

What statement? Saddam's regime was as stable as it was brutal and oppressive, even when he was denied large portions of his airspace during the sanctions.

Stable = When Saddam's regime is removed and the Iraqi people have the infrastructure and government set up to govern themselves and provide security for themselves. Like what we're doing in Afgahnistan.

Again, that's a more specific goal than what I've seen stated. It's worth noting that Afghanistan is far, far from that goal.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: tec699
You guys are like little babies!

-Here ya go guys... I warmed your milk the way you all like it.

:Q

Intelligent people evaluate situations instead of just going, "Yay! Let's kick everyone's ass!" or "War bad! Let's stick our thumbs up our arse and never act on anything!"

I am for the Iraq war because I believe it is just and the only way. However I am not for a war with North Korea because I understand that it is a completely different situation. (yet) Not saying that if the situation plays out poorly that it might not change my mind, but right now, it hasn't reached that point yet. There are many other things we can do long before war.

 

[Ornery]

"Afghanistan?s infrastructure remains depleted and in serious disrepair."

This is definitely something I'm not clear on. I just saw a report on CNN or FNC showing a Baghdad "water treatment" facility that hasn't functioned in years. A worker said the reason is because the pipes are tapped into outside the plant. Are we supposed to bring all this infrastructure up to par right away? It's not like we're "rebuilding" something we blew up. WTF did these people do for water etc. up till now?

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: wanders
It's based on the US National Security Strategy document, as well as the stated opinions and goals of many key members of the current administration.

Link please? I have never seen anything to suggest that is the goal of the current administration.

True, the justification for war has been disarmament. However, there is no urgent need for disarmament. The US administration also choose to terminate a working disarmament process by launching a war at this time.

Not urgent? He would already have nukes if Israel hadn't bombed his last nuke plant. He has already shown by not voluntarily showing inspectors what he has or "has destroyed" (cuz he didn't) that he isn't interested in stopping his pursuit of these weapons? Should we wait until he can nuke our troops?

Iraq admitted they had the weapons, so how is there a lack of weapons? [..]

You need to reread the bit of text you just quoted.

Funny how you omitted the rest of what I said. That they refused to give documentation or show how they supposedly destroyed them. If they definately HAD them + they refuse to prove they destroyed them = 99.999999999% chance they still have them.

Again, that's a more specific goal than what I've seen stated. It's worth noting that Afghanistan is far, far from that goal.

I never said reconstruction was easy. Not everything that needs to be done is easy and nearly everything worth doing is definately not easy.

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by: Ornery
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.

Disarm him from what? WMD?

They have oil, and we want it, end of story.

 

[Ornery]

Another classic representative of the liberal left!

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Mark
Disarm him from what? WMD?

They have oil, and we want it, end of story.

Right, cuz that's what we did in the first gulf war.... Take Iraq's oil. Oh wait.... that's right, we could have if we wanted to but we didn't.

Bush is on record so many times saying that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people that if he tries to take it, that would be the end of him. We may get some trading deals (which I have no problem with since we are spending 80 billion + and they get freedom) but nobody is taking their oil away from them.

 

[Mark]

Again I ask, disarm him from what? Like I said in another thread, don't you think if they actually had WMD, they would have told the inspectors where to look when they were there? Fact, Iraq is the second most oil rich country behind Saudi Arabia, and 90% of the country is still unexplored.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Ummm, yea... I'm sure Saddam (who murdered hundreds of thousands of people and ordered the rape and torture of countless more) would be completely honest and upfront with the inspectors.

As for the rest, I can't argue with completely unrelated comments.

 

[freakflag]

Again I ask, disarm him from what? Like I said in another thread, don't you think if they actually had WMD, they would have told the inspectors where to look when they were there? Fact, Iraq is the second most oil rich country behind Saudi Arabia, and 90% of the country is still unexplored.

Oh boy, I hear chirping. You guys and your Nickelodeon diplomacy.

 

[Mark]

lmao, I'm talking about US INTELLIGENCE on WMD, not Saddam mouth.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Sorry, not psychic... that's what happens when you use an undefined pronoun.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

Right, cuz that's what we did in the first gulf war.... Take Iraq's oil. Oh wait.... that's right, we could have if we wanted to but we didn't.

Bush is on record so many times saying that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people that if he tries to take it, that would be the end of him. We may get some trading deals (which I have no problem with since we are spending 80 billion + and they get freedom) but nobody is taking their oil away from them.

Geez, some of you take things so literally. No, we don't mean to say that Bush is going to start pumping his own oil and load it up in planes and take it away. The plan is to install a government that will be friendly/obedient to us and that will be able to exploit all Iraq's oil resources to the max. Then, in addition to having the largest oil-wealthy country in our pockets, Saudi Arabia, we also have the second largest to do our bidding. Oil has always been the impetus of all our foreign policy dealings in the Middle East, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

 

[BaDaBooM]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: BaDaBooM

Right, cuz that's what we did in the first gulf war.... Take Iraq's oil. Oh wait.... that's right, we could have if we wanted to but we didn't.

Bush is on record so many times saying that the oil belongs to the Iraqi people that if he tries to take it, that would be the end of him. We may get some trading deals (which I have no problem with since we are spending 80 billion + and they get freedom) but nobody is taking their oil away from them.

Geez, some of you take things so literally. No, we don't mean to say that Bush is going to start pumping his own oil and load it up in planes and take it away. The plan is to install a government that will be friendly/obedient to us and that will be able to exploit all Iraq's oil resources to the max. Then, in addition to having the largest oil-wealthy country in our pockets, Saudi Arabia, we also have the second largest to do our bidding. Oil has always been the impetus of all our foreign policy dealings in the Middle East, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

If they set up a true democracy, Iraq will have the choice... though I hope they choose to give us good trading (since we gave them the ability to have the choice). I see nothing wrong with this. So the 80+ billion they spend to do this was all for oil trading? If that was all they wanted they could have sided with Saddam and gotten the billion dollar deals Russia and France got with Saddam. Russia had the biggest deals with 8 billion. Hmmm... spend 80+ billion to get, ok... let's even quadruple the Russian figure - 24 billion? No one would do that. Think before you buy other people's propaganda. Otherwise you might be considered naive.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Morph
The plan is to install a government that will be friendly/obedient to us and that will be able to exploit all Iraq's oil resources to the max. Then, in addition to having the largest oil-wealthy country in our pockets, Saudi Arabia, we also have the second largest to do our bidding. Oil has always been the impetus of all our foreign policy dealings in the Middle East, anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

I agree with this, but I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. We're doing what's in our country's best interest. If Iraq was the #1 military and economic power they'd be doing the same thing, as would France, Germany, Russia, and anyone else.

 

[HillbillyHab]

I have heard military analysts claim that any type of conflict with N. Korea, even a surprise attack against them, would result in a million dead. The S. Korean's would take the brunt of the casualties before the N. Koreans could be completely subdued. It is in everyones best interest to exhaust ALL diplomatic means before resorting to military force in that region. According to U.S. intelligence, N. Korea has tested missiles capable of hitting Alaska and untested missiles capable of hitting anywhere in N. America. They have not tested nuclear weapons to the best of our knowledge. There is good reason for the current (and past) administrations to treat them with kid gloves.