Hmm.. Iraq Is Not The Real Threat, North Korea is... Options

[Nathan561]

You see the old Georgey getting all trigger happy over Iraq, and their possible (and most probable) weapons,yet have you thought about what might happen with North Korea in the near future. They could already have, plus the ability to have more nukes in the next year or so. On top of this, They're a mean ass country as well, slagging off pretty much everyone else and becoming utter loners as well as still being officially at war with the South. To be truly honest, North Korea is the same level threat, possibly more that Iraq as for a start there is solid evidence that they are infact producing nuclear material... apparently for their own "self-denfense"... hmm..

This post has been edited by Nathan561: Mar 6 2003, 10:29 PM

[Ace25]

Yup, any semi intelligent person can see that.. unfortunately, we dont even have a semi intelligent president or government.

[Skunky]

totally agree.... Bush has a wild hair up his ass for sadam.. since his father couldn't get the job done in the first place.... Look what these republican presidents do when in office. start wars even without the UN permission...kill the economy...etc... can't wait tell 2006 to get a new prez...

[kard63]

I am totally sexist but I am voting for Hilary Clinton in 2004.

Speaking of Hilary anyone see that VJ on MTV? I would fuck the shit outa' her.

[Tiber123]

Yeah,and what would gore do in this situation, go to the un crying and pay them money to protect us?

[MartialXboxArtist]

China is training (HIGHLY TRAINED) 200+ million soldiers. Lets hope we don't piss off China. I don't know what is up Korea's ass, but they need to chill with the Nuke. Not going to do anything, but get them hurt as well. As for the US, they need to stop acting like they're the BOSS of everyone. That's what going to get us NUKED there, which I think WILL HAPPEN...

Anyways, I am against war. What the hell is anyone getting out of it?

[capt_n_yayo]

Its all a very sad situation, apparently as we all know that this whole thing w/ iraq revolves around $$. I bet if North Korea had as much natural rescource as iraq their arses would be a some 'deep' shit too! It's too bad that the prez. of the U.S. I a raving dumb-ass He makes it hard for ALOT of people inthis country w/ all this 'axis of evil' shit! Never liked them bushes in office. As for China, they got a SERIOUS bone to pick w/ the U.S.! These higher ups shit where WE sleep!

This post has been edited by capt_n_yayo: Mar 6 2003, 10:50 PM

[phantazma1]

north korea is NOT a threat. they won't dare start a war with the US and South Korean because they KNOW in the end, they will lose. they hit us, we hit them 10 times harder. They always try to show the world that they aren't weak. The day South Korea elected their new president, North Korea launched a few missles in the Sea of Japan. Coincidence?? Nope. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk. Besides, america is giving them milllions of dollars worth of food each year for agreeing to close down their nuclear plants. They just began to reactivate them. They want to show the world that they are not afraid of anybody, but in reality, they are. I think America is gonna stop sending them food, and so even more North Koreans are gonna die. It's really unfair for the citizens over there, but it's not like we have a choice.

Korea can throw missles at the US without going anywhere. So what?? We got 30,000+ troops in korea, 30,000+ troops in Japan, 1 million koreans, and troops stationed in the phillipeanes. North Korea has 1 million troops, and so do we. what they DON'T have in the funds to start a long war.

my gf is korean and she's really scared to go back to south korea next december, but i really don't think that this conflict will escalate to war.

[Nathan561]

QUOTE (MartialXboxArtist @ Mar 6 2003, 11:47 PM)

China is training (HIGHLY TRAINED) 200+ million soldiers. Lets hope we don't piss off China. I don't know what is up Korea's ass, but they need to chill with the Nuke. Not going to do anything, but get them hurt as well. As for the US, they need to stop acting like they're the BOSS of everyone. That's what going to get us NUKED there, which I think WILL HAPPEN... Anyways, I am against war. What the hell is anyone getting out of it?

I completely agree, if China was more of a developed country they would certainly be one, if not the most powerful in the world.
As for North Korea, we will see what happens in the future but give a year or 2 when nuclear neogciations fail things may begin to get a tad more serious. The damn President of North Korea has already told the whole countires military and public to prepare for a US led invasion.. they know they're causing trouble.

[DaGamePimp]

consider however that N.Korea is not hiding anything and most of the free world is against them building any Atomic weapons [ this is not just the USA that should be involved ... and we are not ] . Japan is right in the region and they strongly oppose what N.Korea is doing , do you really think that N.Korea could defeat Japan [ I think not ] . China does not back N.Korea either and just because they do not agree with a war on Iraq does not mean that they are ok with what N.Korea is doing . Iraq is a threat to the free world , period . Should the US wage war against Iraq ... no , but the weapons of mass destruction must be found and destoyed before they get into the wrong hands [ even if Iraq never uses them - this is the real threat , think of Bin-Laden with Bio weapons ] .
--DGP--

[reli]

i have a confession to make, i might sound like a lunatic but, sometimes i fell like i wish the n.koreans get the bomb, forget the bio chem weapons.
the bomb and by bomb i mean nuclear capability.
why?, you ask.
because maybe, maybe it will bring back the cold war era.
conflict was not an option and no one proved to be stupid enough as to push the buttton back then.
of course there was a lot of tension back in the 70s and 80s, and Sting sang his song.
but we have tensions today anyway, right?
diplomacy (altough imperfect) and well, spying, were the only viable options in those days, very different from this time when bullying around undermining the authority if the UN seems to be the order of the day, this is possible only because the balance of power is only shifted to one side.

please don't flame me, this is just what i think.

[johnnobts]

geez, are like 99% of all modders out there flaming liberals? uneducated teenagers mostly, or naive college students who've never even been in a war. am i the lone republican voice crying out in the wilderness? the only military vet?

[reli]

do you consider yourself more educated than the rest of us here just because you went to war?,
johnnobts.
and i also don't get the correlation that you try to stablish between the people here beign naive and the fact that we never went to war, are you saying that going to war like you did, will take away your naivete and open your eyes to the fact that we need more wars perhaps?
i am not following you, please excuse me i am just an uneducated fart.

This post has been edited by reli: Mar 7 2003, 01:38 AM

[Lizard_King]

You are not alone, johnobts.

North Korea is a brilliant example of why Iraq must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons. The difference in the situation is that we actually have viable allies in the region, South Korea and Japan. Japan in particular is the third largest military spender after the US and Russia, miles ahead of China, and they are about a screw's turn away from going nuclear should North Korea become excessively belligerent. People think WWII made them pacifists; all it really did was make the Japanese want to be 100% certain that no one would ever be able to nuke them again without serious repercussions.

At any rate, in the Middle East we have no such latitude, simply because our only ally, Israel, has absolutely no negotiating leverage with its neighbours. Ergo, we must play hardball, and take care of Saddam ourselves.

All you anti-American "liberals" are so fond of talking about following the money trail when it comes to US motivations...how about applying that same logic to France, Germany, Russia, China...etc...all who profit far more from the status quo than they ever could with a functional, freely flowing Iraq.

I'm sorry, did I interrupt your "Bush is an idiot, make love not war" festival? Please return to your regularly scheduled programming.

QUOTE

i am not following you, please excuse me i am just an uneducated fart.

Is that how you argue on the playground? Does it get you far there?

All john was *obviously* expressing was his exasperation at the uniformity of view and the naive, trite manner in which it was expressed. And, yeah, in fact, if he has indeed been to war, he knows the human cost side of it, and therefore has more of a frame of reference than, say, those that live under the shelter that men like him provide.

[reli]

ok, so you want occupation of irak an removal of sadam.

now tell me what is that action going to guarantee?
all you pro war boneheads do is say; let's go to war, and those of you who don't agree with the war effort can go fuck yourselves, you are just cowards and live under the protection that 'we' the 'braves' offer to you ungrateful twits.

well, you can say whatever you want but i think that we should be thinking instead about what is this war really going to settle?

is it going to make america and the rest of the world, (because remember, the reach of bush's protestant fundamentalism is according to him, ehrrr.... universal ) feel safer?
is it going to lower the level of anymosity that many nations including of course the arabs already have towards america?
just think of how would you feel if some army came from a distant country and started bombing your city's strategic infrastructure leaving you for months without tap water or electricity.?

furthermore, what's the point of a possible occupation when after months of inspections they haven't been able to come with solid evidence of anything?

i know the argument is something like, well, the irakis are moving the weapons constantly, the weapons are probably not even inside irak, and notice that we are not even talking about nukes, nukes are not easy to hide and there are no signs of activity on that front apparently.
ok, and if the weapons are that easy to move then what's is the point of a war and an invasion?


they also say occupation and killing saddam would open the way to find those weapons because irakis would start talking and telling where the weapons are hidden (duh!)


i think wars shouldn't be started based on speculation that's all, and altough i understand that the need to do something to change the state of things can lead to military action i think that fighting without a clear target in mind is plain dumb.
wars should be started with a clear idea of the results that a possible victory would award.

it's just that i can't help thinking about the latest campaign in afghanistan and the results that it yielded.

zero.


This post has been edited by reli: Mar 7 2003, 09:45 AM