Step away from all of the politics for a moment...Follow

At least my demonstration has proven the desired point.



The American Military is very capable of taking care of NK. But NK would never wait to invade SK while we move our military into position. With that an attack on NK will cost a lot more than Iraq has in life of Americans and both Koreas. It's not only an issue that they have Nukes, it is also an issue of having China sitting to the North of the Yalu River.

The game is much different in the Far East than it is in the Middle East. It would be like saying that playing EQ is just like playing DAOC.

*Single post before dissolving into obscurity, so feel free to flame, because you're wasting your time*

-Kerry flip flopping on Iraq issue-
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President’s Action In Iraq. KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted “To Threaten” Use Of Force In Iraq. “I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

Just presenting the facts, accept them or don't (and I know you won't.)

I don't believe anyone in their right mind would actually WANT to be off in the middle of a firefight in some foreign country, but as was said earlier, it is their job and duty. I myself have a friend who joined the Marines about a year before 9-11. He went to Iraq, he came back, and then reported to California, he is now back in Iraq having volunteered to take the place of a husband and father so he could spend time with his family. My take: you can't support the troops but not the war.

As John F'ing Kerry once said "I actually voted for the [extra funding for the armed services in Iraq] before I voted against it." I don't see how anyone can trust someone who so quickly will change from one side to the other and then attempt to make it seem that he was on one side the whole time... but hey, I'm not supposed to, it's your beliefs.

I have a problem with a lot of things, but I also understand the North Korea issue is more complex than what the public is being led to believe.

Think for a little bit Smash, IF we had bombed the facilities in North Korea a year ago the world would be in a lot worse shape than it is now. What do you think the ramifications of bombing anything in NK would be? It would be a violation of the Armistice signed in 1953. NK would be able to legally invade SK. Seoul would be in ruins with in 24 hours (optimistic estimate) with 12 hours being more realistic. The soldiers that we have there on the peninsuala know would be wiped out or retreating in less than 6 hours if they weren't surrounded by the NK troops that would flood out of the tunnels from NK to SK.

The South Korean government at the time probably did not support taking out the facilities. We could not and still can not move additional troops into SK than what we have now or that would also be considered a violation of the Armistice. The exception for that is we can move troops in on "TDY" status for training purposes.

Iraq was in violation of 18 UN Resolutions when we attacked and those violations are some of the reasons that America invaded Iraq. Your side keeps harping on the WMD as though that is the ONLY reason we went in, when anyone who has followed the Iraq War knows there are multiple reasons we went in WMD was just the "Selling" point.

Mexican-American War (1846-1848)
Hawaiian Coup (1893)
Spanish-American War (1898-1902)
Invasion and occupation of Haiti (1914-34)
Dominican Republic, invasion and occupation (1916-24)
Cuba Occupation, economic protectorate (1917-33)
Bay of Pigs Invasion (CIA, but still) (1961)
Dominican Crisis (1965)
Grenada (1983)
Nicaragua (1989)
Afganistan (2001)
Iraq (2002)

This is only a list of proactive wars, invasions or invasions and occupations, it does not include the numerous times we invaded a country during a civil uprising to protect U.S. business interests or U.S. civilians in a certain contained area within a country. We as a country have a long history of not giving a *** what other countries think of us.

As Skeet likes to put it: Just sayin'

Yea I looked these up, you didn't expect me to remember exact dates and names did you?

Chtulhu,
If the death of innocents is the sole issue, then Kerry and his pro-abortion stance, in my opinion, does not qualify as the "sanctity of life" candidate. War is the result of the breakdown of diplomacy, something which requires two parties to engage in, but abortion is an issue of convenience in which the life being lost has no choice or options other than a painful and excruciating death.

Feel free to pile-on, all you coat hanger murderers. I'm certain my views will be a lightning rod of negative attention from you promiscuous baby killers.

Totem

Totem, I'm not pro-abortion either, but I don't see that issue changing, no matter who's in office. I'm actually very vocally pro-life, and Smash and I even had a debate about it a while ago.

But, while abortion as an issue is just there as an election tool, the war is currently, and actively, going on. It does have the ability to be changed, to a point. And Bush is going on with his "I kick ***" , yet he's only attacking countries that don't have the capability to actually and seriously fight back, ignoring the real dangers we have.

Hey, I'm not going to reply to replies to this or read what happens next, so don't bother flaming me ;).

That said, sticking to the subject of this thread, that is, "Put Politics Aside" or something like that, the following is true. There are two countries capable of launching an ICBM that is both accurate enough and has sufficient range to cross the Atlantic/Pacific Oceans and eliminate a target. Those two are the United States and the Russian Federation. China is currently developing weapons, but the farthest their birds can fly is to POSSIBLY the Aleutian Islands. On a good day. North Korea isn't even close. Iraq (at this point) in all likelihood never had warheads, but for SURE never had ICBMs able to strike America "within 45 minutes" from fueling, as Blair and Bush stated. College students (like me) and international conflict analysts know this.

Second, a Dirty Bomb is NOT, repeat NOT a nuclear warhead. When we were worried about Saddaam having a Dirty Bomb, we're talking about a device capable of scattering radioactive waste around an area the size of two blocks of downtown Atlanta, not of generating an explosion capable of even toppling one skyscraper. Further, Dirty Bombs are called Dirty because they don't have to use weapons-grade plutonium used in chain-reaction nuclear warheads. Instead, they use any radioactive material at all. Granted, two blocks of irradiated Atlanta/big city would be bad, but Saddaam or any dictator could crank one of those out right now without breaking a sweat. An American with above-average connections could too. It's no reason for invading a country. The same goes for chemical weapons. The WMD threat was, regretably, negligible. Ask the CIA, they agree.

Edited for spelling.

Edited, Mon Aug 2 00:17:52 2004 by Eleas

HAHA...you gotta love The Sun, Star, and Mirror. Not to mention the BBC.

www.drudgereport.com
www.lucianne.com

They can put a man in orbit, too; I wouldn't put it past them to do LEO nukes if they felt like it. (Which they DO have the capability to do, along with the US, Russia, and the European Union. Kinda gives you a warm fuzzy green-glowing feeling, don't it?)



NK missile range is enough that they can annoy Japan.



College students (like you) need to spend more time smoking pot and less time dealing with politics.



Nuclear, radiological, close enough - the end result is radioactive contamination either way, and if you have a decent amount of conventional explosive (e.g. Terry Nichols and Timmy McVeigh's Ryder truck full of fuel oil & ammonium whatever-the-hell [nitrate, I think]) you've got a decent amount of destructive power as well.

Yes, "dirty bombs" (or, for the correct term, "radiological devices") do not require any substantial material - hell, you could break into any hospital in the US and have enough material to cover between 20 and 200 blocks of your average city just by taking the source from one X-ray machine. That in itself should be enough to scare the hell out of people.

Remember, all doctors are terrorists!

Yo! TOTEM! - Read my post again. Damn the liberal dumb asses are really starting to influence you here. I am PRO LIFE! And Chtulhu the killing of innocent children is very much an on going issue, it is not simply a political foot ball. Babies are dying everyday because of selfish, young women and men wanting to have sex and are unaware of the consequneces. Then when the baby pops into the picture the "easy" answer is to "abort the fetus". This is just as vital and important as the war in Iraq. More so because the babies have no rights in Abortion.

The soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines all signed up to join a voluntary military accepting the risk that they may have to actually fight. Though much like many people once they are faced with that "improbability" that we would actually go to war, they actually fullfil the main purpose for the service. Then you have the few who *****, moan and complain stating going to war is not the reason why I signed up. Duh! Don't they know what the military is all about? It is not a free ride for educational benefits.

As for the Iraqi "innocents" dying? Well the cost of freedom isn't free, any American that understands American History should realize that. People die in wars, and had the Iraqi's chosen leadership (the Iraqi's could have revolted against Sadam) met the conditions of the UN Resolutions and proven they dismantled their weapons of mass destruction then none of this Iraq war **** would have happened.

For those dip ***** out here on the forum that think a good majority of the military does not support Bush, show me the numbers. Even as the war progresses we still have young men and women enlisting and re-enlisting in the services. Their are people in this country that understand the world in a completely different way than your self serving liberal, abortion granting ways.

Stok, the point is, no matter who's elected, the chances of the law being changed in the next term are very low.

Show me the numbers from at least two credible sources that do not slant to the left. I'm not able to find a solid source for these numbers other than what I personally know and you don't accept personal experience as fact here, so that is moot to your side.