Rumors of Nukes found in Iraq...Follow

Sure. Several points though:

The UN is not moving to normalize the status of North Korea right at this moment.

If they were, this would likely be seen as a good thing rather then a bad thing by the US.


Right, they don't have a massive amount of Oil and aren't a direct threat to Isreal.


North Korea hasn't openly threatened to attack us, or called upon other nations and terrorist organizations to attack us.


This about the nineteenth time you've tried to pass this off as true. A nine year old could find them openly threatening us with nuclear attack using Google in about twenty seconds. Astonishing that you can't.




North Korea is orders of magnitude less related to Middle Eastern terrorism then Iraq was.


None of the rational given for invading Iraq had to do with Middle Eastern Terrorism. You've said so yourself about 100 times. That's all media bias, remember?

Sucks when you condradict yourself so clearly, doesn't it?



There are a number of stabilizing forces in the region where North Korea is that we can use to keep things from getting out of hand there (China, Russia, Japan, just to name a few).


The Bush administration, while occupied by Iraq, proclaimed N Korea "evil" which they responded to by persuing nukes even more aggresively. This administration then did nothing to stop that, essentially ignoring it and hoping that our trade ties with China would cause them to step in, which they haven't.

So in about five years or less you're going to have a country ruled by a certifiably lunatic tyrant who has nuclear weapons that he can deliver to the US with the push of a button.

But we'll have an undermanned strategic position in the middle east where terrorists can just drive a few hours through a porus border to kill Americans instead of having to deal with getting into the US.

So we've got that going for us.


There are virtually no useful stabilizing forces in the region around Iraq.


Right, aside from Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Jordan, Turkey, and the UAE.


I could go on.


Sure you could. Facts don't matter. You could go on about monkies flying out of your ***, you have about as much understanding of that as you do geopolitics.



The point is that the differences between the two situations are staggering. Making any comparison between them is a ridiculous oversimplification of the political situations in those two regions and our relations with those two countries.


I agree. One was a country actively and openly persuing WMD which they now have due in large part to our lack of attention, with a mindumbinly cruel tyrannical leader who could have a psychotic break at any time.

The other was a country completely under UN controll being patrolled daily by the air who posed no serious risk to US national security at all.

I was reading an article by a woman that was fired from the DoD or CIA or something like that in which she ran down for the reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq and it had the usual fare such as Oil reserves.

It also mentioned that other reasons were because the would put the fear of God in other middle eastern nations, the US would be able to secure military bases in Iraq in which they would be able to have the run of the show unlike Saudi Arabia in which they have to do as Saudis's say, also Iraq is accessible from Persian Gulf and provides access to Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and puts them in striking distance of more than a few other middle eastern states.

It was pretty interesting and ill try to dig it up for you, needless to say there was more to it than Oil or WMD. Also i remember hearing that oil sanctions were gonna be relaxed and that France/Germany/Russia stood to profit greatly from it as they would be main exporters of Iraqi oil but that was something i heard through discussion with others and would not be able to source without doing some research, which im far to lazy to do today.

Use "much" much?

Gbaji you're actually asking smashed to prove something...that's almost funny. We can inform them all we want but one thing I know is I'm never going to change anyones opinion all I can do is present them with enough information so they can change their own mind.

Varus

Gbaji you're actually asking smashed to prove something...that's almost funny. We can inform them all we want but one thing I know is I'm never going to change anyones opinion all I can do is present them with enough information so they can change their own mind.


I'd like to see you actually present anyone with information, just for a change.

Allthough you and Gbaji are a great team. He has no idea what he's talking about and tries to compensate with verbosity, you have no idea what you're talking about and try to compensate with attempts at gettng people to pity you.

It's a powerfull combination.

I say Gbaji/Varus in 2012 for president/vice president of NAMBLA.

Smashed wrote:



You mean like the pitiful ratings I posted earlier of the democratic national convention? Does that count?

I obtain my news from 3 primary sources...drudge, fox news, and cnn not openly socialist uk sources like the guardian.

Varus

while it may not have anything directly to do with nukes in iraq (there is a brief article on it however)
this is an excellent site for current informatio among other things.

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Edited, Tue Jul 27 18:33:16 2004 by Rushifell

Edited, Tue Jul 27 18:33:48 2004 by Rushifell

while it may not have anything directly to do with nukes in iraq (there is a brief article on it however)
this is an excellent site for current informatio among other things.


Yeah, if you want to get information from a conspiracy theorist whackjob, it's great!

Actually I drew the conclusion that people aren't interested in the democratic convention, pay attention.


Really?


THE BIG YAWN: NETWORKS IN RATINGS FREEFALL AT CONVENTION, OPENING NIGHT ALL-TIME LOW: ABCNEWS JENNINGS WITH 3.5 RATING/5 SHARE [DOWN FROM 4.5/8 IN 2000]; NBCNEWS BROKAW 3.3/5 [2000:4.8/9]; CBS DAN RATHER 3.2/5 [2000:3.8/7... TRAIL ALL OTHER PRIME-TIME MONDAY PROGRAMMING [CBS:MIAMI RERUN ON CBS PULLS 8.6 RATING/13 SHARE]... DEVELOPING...

yeah Kerry is really inspiring the public to get on his band wagon.


lol I love election season

Varus
[/b]

What the fuc[/b]k does "yeak [b]KERRY yadda yadda mean then?

What's your native language, by the way?

You see, in English, when you refer directly to someone by name, it means you're talking about them.

You dumb motherfu[b][/b]cker.

Edited, Tue Jul 27 18:40:52 2004 by Smasharoo

I'm going to do something that will shock and astound even you smashed. You're right I did reference kerry. See how easy it is when you know you're wrong.

Varus

Poor Gbaji....

Of course they don't have "nothing to do with it". Iraq has oil. Therefore, that's going to color everything about that nation. But it's hardly the only factor here as you keep implying.



Um... Did you read anything more then the title of that article?

"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US."

That's a little different then calling on all Muslim people of the world to strike at the US. More of a "Hey! Don't include us in your axis of evil thingie, we're not planning anything, but we could if really pushed".

North Korean officials fear the extra forces are the start of the build-up for a full-scale confrontation - a dangerous assumption that could push the peninsula over the edge.

This is reaction from North Korea of our agressive stance towards them. Also:

Both sides say they are committed to finding a diplomatic solution but remain far apart in their demands. Pyongyang wants a non-aggression treaty but Washington has said it will not reward blackmail and has hinted only at a written guarantee of the North's security.


Read between the lines. This is politics as usual. Made a bit more dramatic given the current circumstances, but the odds of this going to active conflict are extremely slim. Also, we can be pretty sure that if we don't mess with North Korea, they wont mess with us. Something we simply could not assume with Iraq.




Look. There are so many hits on any google search you do on the topic, it's not even funny.

Hmmmm... There's always the plot to assassinate Bush Sr.

I don't think the North Korean government has actually tried to bump off any of our people recently. But that's just an assumption on my part.

And this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html


I'm not sure how accurate this link is, but it's got several quotes from Saddam himself and media outlets controlled by his government, making some pretty direct threats against the US.


And beyond the web sites, I've lived over the last decade, and have watched the televised speaches and statements that have come out of Iraq, both during and after the first gulf war, and during and after this one. Now maybe Saddam just got better coverage then Kim, but I don't recall any statements from Korea in nearly as strong terms as those from Iraq.





Um... Did I say terrorst attacks against the US? So we only fight terrorists if they bother us? That's a European position Smash. Only get involved if something directly affects you and your interests. That's the same kind of thinking that got us WW1 and WW2, and which caused many nations to oppose a UN action against Iraq in the first place (France and Russia having veto power and having vested financial interests in Iraqi oil under Saddam's regime ring a bell?).

The whole point is that if we ignore terrorism while it's just aimed at someone else, it will eventually come around to be aimed at us. That's the lesson we should have learned from 9/11. We, the US people, have believed for decades now that terrorist attacks were something that happened in other people's countries, and that we didn't need to worry about it. Guess what? We were wrong. The goal is to make it harder for terrorist organizations to hide across international borders Smash. That's what the entire war against terror is about.

Thus, a nation that actively supports terrorism *and* actively harbors terrorists we are seeking (like a few members of Al-queda who *were* involved in 9/11), becomes a legal target of the doctrine.

Smash. Let me put the original exchange back in place. Read. Read again. Now go take 5th grade again and read it again.


I said that the UN normalizing relations with North Korea would be seen largely as a good thing from the US's perspective (ie: ending the cease fire condition), whereas the same action by the UN was seen as a bad thing when done in Iraq.

You then responded with some random garbage about Oil and a threat to Isreal, implying that the reason we would react differently was purely (or at least mostly) because of those two reason.


Look. Dumb argument. If we just want to buy oil, we'd want to normalize relations. Remember, part of the conditions was an oil sale embargo on the freaking country. All we had to do was let the cease fire end and sanctions be lifted, and we could buy all the oil we wanted from them.

If anying, your argument makes more sense as the rationale for why nations like France wanted to remove the sanctions. They stood to gain the most from it.


It's really simple Smash. We gain *nothing* by attacking Iraq. It costs us money. It costs us people. Aren't you the one always going off about how much money and men we are wasting in Iraq? We could get the oil via economic means. The US is the most influential economic factor in the world right now. If it was just about manipulating markets and goods, we did not have to use our military at all to get what we wanted. That really is the most ridiculous argument, yet I keep hearing people spouting it off: "it's all about the oil".

Look. It's not about the oil. Really. It isn't. The only thing we get out of attacking Iraq is the ability to remove a potential weapons supplier in the area, and a foothold militarily in the area. That's why we went there. If we had just wanted oil, we could have done that much easier using other methods. We clearly wanted Saddam removed. You can make up your own reasons why we wanted Saddam removed if you want, but I tend to go with the most obvious and logical reasons: He did threaten us. He did have the ability to carry out those threats. He had the connections to carry out those threats. And he'd shown a willingness and ruthlessness to carry out those threats.


You can spin all sorts of bizare conspiracy theories to the contrary, but my logic simply makes the most sense. It's straightforward. It's obvious. You can draw a straight line through it. You're requires some kind of obtuse thinking, and a set of assumptions and unproven connections which coincidentally enougb, you can't seem to make. I hear the "it's all about oil" argument all the time, yet no one can seem to explain exactly how attacking Iraq gets us more oil, or saves us money, or pads any particular oil company's pockets, or how that specifically gets back to the men in the government making it all happen in the first place. It's classic conspiracy theory. The only people who really believe that are the same kinds of people who think that the elaborate plots concocted by Bond villians are "clever".