There is quite a bit of talk regarding Kim Jong Il (the dictator of North Korea), and that he should be considered the bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. After all, while the question of Saddam Hussein and his posession of WMD is somewhat trivial (no definitive proof), but in the case of Kim Jong Il, it is somewhat more definitive, with real evidence that he may be trying to acquire nuclear weapons. However, the hawkish attitude that is being levelled at Iraq does not appear to apply to North Korea. Opinions?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
We would attack North Korea were it not for our pre-occupation with Iraq and the fact that North Korea could nuke the surrounding nations if attacked and also kick our butt with it's army of 1 million people. Yes. North Korea is a bigger threat. Their leader is quite insane and unstable. I believe they consider us deploying more bombers to the region an act of war, and didn't we say that that would be happening soon?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I thought "Die Another Day" had changed public opinion. Everyone must see "Die Another Day" at least once! Get those commie gooks, especially the faggy Oxford graduate ones.
No, my stance regarding "BOND XVIIXMII-SPQR" is the same regarding this topic. I don't think the general audience knows enough (read: anything) about the Korea situation for the movie plot to work properly, and in the same fashion I don't think the same aggressive steps taken against Iraq these last months would work on Korea. I mean, the world have heard about Saddam now for the past twelve years and still we can't contain the allied support or get a unanimous vote for action, with Korea we would have anti-war demonstrations on the White House lawn.
So for the mob to get up to date re: Korea, (if indeed it is the smarter move) we need to have more "Die Sometime Next Tuesday" films. And I don't like those tactics, in fact I hate war propaganda, reminds me of "Wag the Dog".
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Hehe.. I thought the title read "Who is the bigger thread?".
Uhmm.. nevermind. Carry on.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I believe that North Korea is a bigger threat. While there is no concrete proof that Iraq has no WMD. It IS known that North Korea does.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hmm... offhand theory: might we be waiting to attack North Korea until we have a reliable theatre missile defense system?
And as for their million-man army, we'd still own the sky and seas. Their army wouldn't stand a chance.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Omega fails to realize that to defeat North Korea, we'd still have to send in troops. And the North Koreans won't exactly fold as easily as, say, the typical Iraqi soldier did 12 years ago.
Omega: here's some basic military knowledge for you -- control of the air is fine, control of the sea is great, but you need to control the ground to WIN.
BTW: in Vietnam, the US controlled the air and the sea. Hardly an easy victory. Oh, wait, it wasn't a victory at all.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, but that was more because the war was run by morons than anything. "Send in the troops and have them... do something!"
Secondly, just what do you think would happen to a million man army with no effective air cover under unfriendly skies? Either it scatters, which given the terrain and our current level of technology wouldn't be nearly as effective as in Vietnam, or it dies that much faster. Yeah, if our objectives required ground troops to go in, they might face some opposition, but given the choice between 4:1 odds in on sides favor, and overwhelming arial and technological superiority in the other, I'd say the tech wins out, no?
And under any circumstances, whether you need ground troops also depends on your definition of "win". If your objective is simply to remove their nukes and long-range missiles, you can do that with air strikes just fine, for the most part, even if you have to use tactical nukes to do it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I just hope that our military leaders with combat experience, and a knowledge of history, remember that the North Koreans won't give in as easily as you apparently think they will.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Oh great. Not satisfied at randomly launching Tomahawk missiles at the current threat of the day, you're going to start nuking them? Oh yeah, this is going to lead to world stability...
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
North Korea may be the bigger threat because they have the nukes -- but personally, I think that those missiles are more likely to spontaneously combust than actually hit anything, even now.
Not that I'm willing to risk anything on that assessment, of course...
Part of the problem is that East Asian politics is a lot different in some ways, because of the cultural differences. Kim Jong Il won't back down now unless he has a way to save face publicly... and he's set things up so he can't do that since the conflict is defined about keeping or disposing of those nukes. It's an all-or-nothing situation.
I think that despite the words of the "geniuses" we're "lucky" to call leaders in the Bush administration, they don't really want to fight two wars at once -- not the least reason because of the public opinion nightmare that would develop.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
But still the threat remains. If the U.S. is going all gung-ho over Iraq, why don't we give North Korea the same treatment? Or even worse? North Korea is violating its terms of whatever UN treaty they signed many years ago. Blatantly and in plain view too. So, why the double standard? Why the lack of consistency?
Or is it about oil, like many opponents say it is? North Korea doesn't have anything that the U.S. wants, does it?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It's because we can win in Iraq without too much of a problem, although who knows what the aftermath will be.
Attacking North Korea would be a major and difficult operation, despite what General Omega says.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Do you go after the psycho you beat up before or the new nut that's had some karate classes? Hmmm....let me think about that one.....
How we handle Saddam and the threat of Bio-weapons will determine weither Lil' Kim backs the fuck down. He's kooky so don't bet on it.
...plus occupation of Iraq means never having to bribe pissant presidents of Turkey ever again. Can these guys hold out for more cash or what?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"we can win in Iraq without too much of a problem"
Don't count on it. This time, you'll be forced to conduct urban warfare.
Blood is going to run in the streets of Baghdad.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I think you are right, but Saddam can't nuke anyone or disrupt a major economic center just thirty miles or so from his boarders.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Blow up a couple of dams, and the only thing that will be running in the streets of Baghdad will be eight feet of water.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
We could nuke them too. Then we would win without any problems at all.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
The typical American conservative thinks its perfectly okay to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians to get a "bad guy" (actually, many of them think that if you're not American, you're a "bad guy"), but you so much as look at an American civilian funny, it's time to kill ya'.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The typical American Liberal, on the other hand, thinks it's perfectly okay for a "bad guy" to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians (actually, many of them think that if you're American, you're a "bad guy")... unless the President opposing the "bad guy" is himself a Liberal (which explains their resounding non-opposition to the 1999 US-led, non-UN-involving military action in a sovreign nation against a democratically-elected government.)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Of course Rob, whatever you say Rob
quote:thinks it's perfectly okay for a "bad guy" to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
Of course, it was Reagan in office when Hussein was killing the Kurds (why didn't he stop Hussein from killings those innocents? Oh yeah, he was giving Hussein money and weapons). And Bush Sr. did no less than to break his promise to the Kurds to provide them military support, and also allowed the Iraqis to fly their choppers and kill many more Kurds (this AFTER the Gulf War!). Yeah. Gee, and you wonder why people don't believe the "reasons" Bush-The-Stupider gives for this war?
The United States of America has directly provided funds and weapons to Hussein, and also not only botched ONE opportunity to take him out of power, but in doing so, also gave him the opportunity to kill a lot more Kurds. And all we hear from conservative assholes is about how America is doing the world a favor by taking Hussein out. Favor my ass. That'd be like me chopping off Rob's limbs, then offering to buy him a wheelchair ten years later. Yeah, I'd be doing Rob a real favor.
Get a clue Rob.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Really, First, you're beginning to sound like a broken record. This isn't about getting rid of bad guys, or you would've ousted Saddam *and* all assorted wackjob dictators (hint: the world is rife with them) long before Dubya got to carry out his charming vendetta. Are you THAT deluded?
Hooray for consistency.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
This isn't about getting rid of bad guys, or you would've ousted Saddam *and* all assorted wackjob dictators (hint: the world is rife with them) long before Dubya got to carry out his charming vendetta.
Yes, because Rob has absolute power over the US military...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I call dibs on the Air Force then!
As long as we're pointig historical fingers at each other there is this to consider: A few days back the "Iron Lady of Serbia" plead guilty to war crimes for her part in the deaths of 2 million people. The World Court gave her 11 years. That's under half hour per person killed. The world thinks we're on a rampage but they hand out wrist slaps for mass murder. Imagine this: SHe got 11 years for 2 million dead. What would Bin Laden get? Five? Ten? Like it or not we're going after our enimies and I doubt the disapproval of France, Germany or anyone else will dissuade us. With monsters like this getting lighter sentences than a murderer on one in the US, it's no wonder the world's opinion means "so much". http://www.un.org/icty/plavsic/trialc/judgement/ Read on in horror.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Well, Bin Laden did only kill an insignificant number of people. Compared with other people that might in theory face the Int'l Court, that is. Handing out jail sentences of 12,345 years only serves to ridicule the justice system.
And it's difficult to imagine a worse punishment than 5 years in jail for Bin Laden, really, unless one loiters to the cruel and unusual territory. This would mean he'd die in the prison hospital, not even martyred by an American bullet.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The point is that there is no real deterrent for mass murder. In the states we have Charles Manson under wraps forever for less than ten murders, but 2 million dead does'nt even warrant a life sentence in the eyes of the World Court. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Snay conveniently ignores his own crap attack and focuses on my equally crap response, precisely what I expected him to do.
quote:And Bush Sr. did no less than to break his promise to the Kurds to provide them military support, and also allowed the Iraqis to fly their choppers and kill many more Kurds (this AFTER the Gulf War!) ... The United States of America has directly provided funds and weapons to Hussein, and also not only botched ONE opportunity to take him out of power, but in doing so, also gave him the opportunity to kill a lot more Kurds.
Yes, horrible things DO happen when the US bows to international public opinion, we've established that. Do you have something NEW to add?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I see. For twenty-years, the US supports Hussein, leaves him in power, does nothing when he murders his own citizens, and now *all* that is the fault of the international community.
Yeah. What a line of bullshit. No wonder we have so many of these assholes in office now -- the world is so complicated, people would rather go along with the simplistic lies of the Republicans.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Umm... can we stop with the pointless recriminations about whose fault the current situation is, and talk about what we're supposed to do NOW? Or has the time for action given way to the time for senseless bickering?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'd still like to know why we're going after Iraq when North Korea has nukes.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"pointless recriminations"
Ever heard of George Santayana, general?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
CNN is reporting the US is going to send 24 long-range bombers to the Pacific to counter North Korea's last provocative moves. Didn't they say this would be an act of war? With the spy plane incident on Sunday, tensions are running high...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Good thing the crack diplomatic and foreign policy staff of Mr. Bush is ready and on call.
Or on crack, I can never figure out which.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Umm... can we stop with the pointless recriminations about whose fault the current situation is, and talk about what we're supposed to do NOW?
Read my tagline. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
I see. For twenty-years, the US supports Hussein, leaves him in power, does nothing when he murders his own citizens, and now *all* that is the fault of the international community.
Nope, not *all* of that, just the last twelve years of it.
We wanted to get him in 1991. That was the original intent, but it got talked down to merely "removing Hussein from Kuwait" due to pressure from Saudi Arabia, France, and Canada, among others, before our first troops even landed for Desert Shield. Mostly for the same reasons they are using now.
We demonstrated that we could have taken Baghdad then, but noooo, someone said that change in Iraq had to come from within (sound familiar?). So we pulled out, let it come from within... and then bowed to further internationalist pressure not to "intervene" in Iraq's "internal affairs" (sounds familiar again)by supporting that change, thusly making us look the villain.
quote:Originally posted by Veers: CNN is reporting the US is going to send 24 long-range bombers to the Pacific to counter North Korea's last provocative moves. Didn't they say this would be an act of war? With the spy plane incident on Sunday, tensions are running high...
Declaring war over some bombers that are based quite a distance away (probably Guam or Okinawa) would make the NKs look overly reactionary.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It actually seems a rather good move. Either way, North Korea loses credibility.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
In a way, that actually makes sense -- and I'm wondering if that might be the Bush administration's point of view on this. We're in more of a position to negotiate with North Korea for a few reasons -- most especially because of its proximity to South Korea, Japan, and even China (who's basically on our side on this issue, though they don't want to admit it). They can take their time with NK, pushing gradually and address the issue. But with Iraq, pushing gradually has been happening for the last 12 years.
You take care of the oldest problems first, right?
(Note: I'm not endorsing any military action here -- just pointing out a possible perspective.)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:You take care of the oldest problems first, right?
You realize that the U.S. has been at war with North Korea for over fifty years, right? I don't see how Iraq can be an "older problem" than that.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:You take care of the oldest problems first, right?
You realize that the U.S. has been at war with North Korea for over fifty years, right? I don't see how Iraq can be an "older problem" than that.
Touch�. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Aren't North Korea far more likely than Iraq to launch WMD (assuming that Iraq has them, and all)? After all, the leader of North Korea is ever so slightly mental.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But it's rather unclear whether he is in a position to control the arsenal of his country. Saddam Hussein forged his own military after a successful coup, one of his first actions being to execute over half of his former supporters for "disloyalty". Kim Jong Il inherited his from his father, and may not have much of a leverage over it.
The generals probably very well know the capabilities and limitations of their military, and won't engage in "mental" acts, not from their point of view. Nuking S�ul might not be that mental from the said point of view, though...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Given the recent incident with the NK fighter jet and the US recon plane, I'm not so sure about that...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Aren't North Korea far more likely than Iraq to launch WMD (assuming that Iraq has them, and all)? After all, the leader of North Korea is ever so slightly mental.
Liam, you miss the whole point of the Bush foreign policy.
A. You can only attack the bad / evil people you can find. That leaves Bin Laden and terror cells out and a big state with a place on the map like Iraq in. Sure you can look for terror cells, but they might be in places like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or other places covered in B.
B. You can only attack bad / evil people you can use overwhelming force to beat quickly and without major disruption.
Saddam does not have weapons of mass distruction that can reach the major cities of important economic centers such as South Korea, Japan or the West Coast of the United States.
Mr. Bush wants a war that will not disrupt the everyday lives of the people of the United States. The war should be called the Bombs and SUV War because all the while we will be bombing Iraq and killing Iraqi citizens, Mr. Bush will be telling us to get out there and spend our dollars in the local economy. They have been doing it since we've been at "war."
This is the be a war without sacrifice, on out part at least.
Afghanistan was a perfect example of this. We didn't use American forces to do the dirty work or else some of them might have been killed and as a result, the most important bad / evil people got away. And in the aftermath, the warlords are back in charge, opium is back to being the major money crop, only Kabul is safe and Mr. Bush, not wanting to spend American dollars on nation building or ask American to sacrifice to help another country, forgets to add money for reconstruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure to next year's budget.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Please tell me they don't acutally let him anywhere near the real figures of the budget.
I mean I know he always likes to play the banker when Colin, Dick and Donald play monopoly but........
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)