north korea started the tsunami by detoniating a n-bomb in the ocean....the hole was so huge that water rushing in and the resulting aftementioned"slap" was the huge waves...i'm not the only one to hear this ONCE.... funny how it all got "squashed" so quickley?...zap!...no kidding

 

01...

Not sure it the "you" you mention are the countries or citizens. Let me give you my stance. I was completely supportive of the 91 Gulf War. I completely supported action in Afghanistan. I was completely against this latest one in Iraq.

The intelligence was questionable from the beginning and containment had worked. We had no clearly defined action plan and no exit plan. The reason we didn't clearly define our action plan is that we wanted to institute regime change and that is tough to sell the the UN. WMDs were a good reason to go in. When that didn't work...well it was human rights or supporters of terrorists. You name it. The bottom line is we need a new base of operations in the Middle East as Saudia Arabia isnt exactly the ideal location.

Establishing a democracy in Iraq isnt a good reason either. There is a list of countries much worse on the terrorists list and have a much worse human rights violations record than Iraq.

N. Korea was way ahead of Iraq in developing nukes before we invaded Iraq.

Now that N. Korea has nukes they have told us to shove it. They want unilateral talks with the US instead of a 5-6 nation conference with their neighbors. Why? because all their neighbors, including China, know how unstable N korea is.

To say that someone who didn't support the Iraqi invasion can't support a Korean invasion doesn't make sense. They are apples and oranges. I don't support invading N. Korea either by the way.

Like I said I'm not really clear on your stance but Iraq and N Korea are completely different situations.

 

True, China did indeed have nukes before Clinton. Clinton just advanced China 20 years or so ahead of schedule in technology and more importantly the missile technology, so they could not just reach out and touch someone, but touch anyone they please…

True, we may have a confession from North Korea but again I refer back to Iraq. We had multiple confessions from Saddam that he had WMD’S (not sure if he ever mentioned nukes)

In all honestly, at the end of the day we have the very same situation in North Korea that we did in Iraq just a few short years ago and many people who did not agree with Bush’s actions have now changed their minds on North Korea. I would really like to know why some (may not be you specifically) but why some have changed their minds on North Korea and still think Bush screwed up with Iraq…

The reason Clinton gets much blame for the state of the world is because he was in power for 8 years and did nothing to stop any country from developing nukes, WMD’S and terrorist. You have to give credit where credit is due, and Clinton due to his actions and/or inactions helped to advanced two nut case countries into possibly having their very own nuke supplies as well as the technology to deliver nukes into downtown New York with a push of a button rather then the complicated jet into the side of tall buildings.

So, again, thanks Clinton for the good times…


And I have no idea where or how in the hell Pakistan & India get nukes but I would speculate it happen sometime between 1992 to 2000 (who was in office then?

 

I'm glad I live in the midwest. If N. Korea fires a missle, it'll only hit the california area. I don't think the fallout will make it this far.
N. Korea has developed an intercontinental ballistic missle you know!









Joking of course.

 

I'm curious if anyone thinks preemptively attacking N Korea is the answer.

 

That is one answer- it's my answer- but, at the same time, I don't know if it'sthe best answer...


If we knew China wouldn't come in to aid NK, then for sure- strike first. But, we don't know that and us, against China & NK would not be good.. for them... And, not much better for eth 25,000 - 35,000 service members we have in South Korea- lovingly referred to as...

Speedbumps....

I think the 1991 approach would be equally effective on NK. 40 days of bombing (3 exta days just to be sure) and then go.

North Korea is much smaller than Iraq. I'd say 72 hours on the ground... Then again, maybe I better up that to 8 days,,,

North Korea is very mountainous.

 

I personally think the North Korea military would wuss out like the military in Iraq did. My reason behind that is their moral and how poorly equipped and trained they most likely are. Sure you can have a huge military, in numbers, but it’s the equipment, and more importantly, the training and moral that make a military a strong force. Numbers just don’t really matter all that much…

 

Total population for N. Korea:

22,912,177 (July 2005 est.) per the CIA (and we all know how good their intelligence is . . . )

Hell, we have traffic jams in LA that involve more people than that.

I say nuke the bastards. Afterwards, it's Miller time.

 

Well, if we took half the illegal immigrants from California, ship them over to North Korea to kick some ***, that would give us a 2 – 1 advantage…

 

<school>
1) North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons and freely admits developing them.

2) Iraq claimed not to have nuclear weapons, denied developing them and what do you know...didn't have any.

</school>

On a related topic, what color is the sky in your world?

-fatz

 

Ill regardless it really don’t matter because it is the SAME argument. Saddam told the world over and over and over he had WMD’S and he was “alleged” to have nukes. Let’s set aside nukes for now…

However, here is a question, since you’re in school. What is the difference between nukes and WMD’S, chemical and biological? Is a nuke really any more dangerous then chemical and biological weapons? Does a nuke really do more damage then chemical and biological weapons?

Who cares what North Korea has to say about having nukes or not. Some people didn’t care about Saddam claiming to have WMD’S, so why do these same people care about what some chipmunk looking dink in North Korea has to say?

Actually, to the liberals out there, wouldn’t it be more humane to be nuked rather then attack with chemical and biological weapons?

I know, for some, they just will not and/or refuse to understand that that the argument at hand is the VERY SAME argument, it don’t matter if the country is Iraq or North Korea. To distinguish them as different arguments is to hallucinate about reality…

 

If we could take all the gang members in LA and turn them loose on anyone (e.g. The Iranian Army, the North Korean Army, any army for that matter) whoever it is they would be fighting would lose. It would be great, we could clean up LA and give some otherwise worthless scum of the earth something constructive to do.

After the gang members, then the rest of the illegal population. Hell, we'd have the largest standing army on the planet.


P.S.
On your post following the one quoted, "Ill regardless" should be irregardless . . . in fact, irregardless is casual usage and it really should just be regardless (irregardless makes English teachers cringe), and change all "then" to THAN. Don't make me define the difference between "then" and "than" again . . . I've done it a thousand times and I think y'all would've gotten it by now.

 

LA, Seattle, San Francisco? That's a problem?

Maybe KJI could take care of the left coast for us!

 

*NEWSFLASH* Dubya has been in office for 5 years now. He's had ample time to take care of the real threat to this country (NK), but he's been too busy fing around with Iraq where we found nothing in the way of WMD. Take off your rose colored glasses already.

 

I see, we have been to busy screwing around with other countries we had NO actual proof of being dangerous (Iraq) but yet have done nothing with countries that we have actual proof (North Korea).

I must be missing something because I did not know anyone or any country had actual proof that North Korea is a threat. Would you care to share with us who actually has solid proof that North Korea is an actual threat, who has solid proof that they have a nuke and/or the capabilities of producing a working nuke?

Once you take off your blurred glasses you will be able to see clearly, you will be able to see that in “reality” North Korea is not really a danger yet, at least not as defined by many supporters of Clinton and those who think we are screwing around in Iraq.

Small recap for you, the ENTIRE free world agreed that Iraq had WMD’S, the ENTIRE free world agreed that Iraq was a very serious threat to the world. In other words the ENTIRE free world believed without any doubt that there was solid undisputable proof that Iraq had WMD’S and was a major threat to the world…

I have yet to see that same kind of “alleged” evidence about North Korea but yet with the massive evidence we “supposedly” had against Iraq we are still considered by some to be “fing around with Iraq where we have found nothing”

Question, why should anyone listen to those that think that way? It just doesn’t make sense to listen to those now does it? It’s hard to listen to and follow the logic of those that can not stand their ground from the beginning to end, and/or correlate the situation of Iraq to North Korea. They are indeed the very same situation, they are indeed the very same problems to the world and America but yet some, for some unknown reason, seem to think they are completely different…

There really is no difference between what a nuke can do and what chemical and biological weapons can do, they are ALL WMD’S and they all can kill untold thousands of innocent people.

The only “real” difference between Iraq and North Korea is that some, due to some misguidance, are swayed by politics rather than the best interest of their country and fellow citizens and that would be those now arguing we “need” to do something, we “must” do something in North Korea but yet were against that very same action in Iraq with as much or more “evidence”.

Regardless, we are where we are due to past administrations of which 8 years was Clintons and he did nothing. President Bush has at least attempted to do something and the one major mistake he has NOT made that Clinton made was to just sit back and let North Korea sign a document and then walk away so they could develop nukes and pretend every thing was grand…

So, what is your solution?