posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:37 PM
As long as North Korea has nukes it will never be attacked by the U.S first. Hence North Korea did the "right" thing by building nukes.
Look at Saddam he got rid of all his WMD's, not only did the U.S invade and destroy him but they kicked the weapons inspectors out prematurely rather
than complete their work which would-could have cleared Iraq of having WMD's. They did the invasion early on the pre-text that the reason why the U.N
inspectors hadn’t found anything was because the Iraqis were messing them around; hence an invasion was necessary because it was the only way to
disarm Iraq of its WMD's (inspections were futile as well as useless).
That was their propaganda line; maybe there's no propaganda about it; maybe it was their truthful opinion. But though their statements point that way
their other statements like "regime change" and all of histories (documented) actions do not.
If you think about (regardless of whether you think regime change was the right idea) it really does look like we will invade a country because
it doesn't have WMD's. I'm not denying there are opinions to the country, and I'm not debating whether or not they are correct. But I am
emphatically pointing out they are just opinions.
Would you as Kim 2 really put the future of your dictatorship in the balance for the opinion that the U.S won't invade a country it could really do
with invading (from it's point of view) if that country gets rid of its WMD'. Especially if that opinion had already been contradicted by its track
record? Saddam trusted that opinion and now we have created the track record that contradicts that opinion.
If North Korea did not have WMD’s I would certainly support almost ANY imminent invasion. I might not support the Iraq war, I might believe
that Saddam was and theoretically still is a better leader for that country than almost anyone we (the West) could hope to find; but I would still
support a North Korea invasion.
Because it’s truly a country so evil it stretches the imagination. A real curiosity as far as providing a world that’s almost an exact replica of
the one described in the infamous pages of George Orwell’s 1984.
However because it has biological and (now nuclear weapons) I would not support its invasion. I know that almost everybody in that country; and
perhaps as many across the border (not to mention a sizable number in Japan) (probably at least a million) would die. It cannot therefore make
economic, political or humanitarian sense to destroy that country by engaging it in war. I hate to say it but it’s only because it has WMD’s.
(Chemical ones don’t really count in my book; as many of our conventional ones are far more powerful (literally and certainly militarily).
People talk of invading Iran; but as long as it has a couple of kilograms of anthrax (with which to scatter over Israel) I think the best hope is to
bring them down economically. And even that won’t work fully; perhaps therefore this is only a political move (rather than a workable-practical
option for change).
Now if you want to talk about something stupid that North Korea did; then their missile launches would have to the thickest of the list. You can
justify not converting to capitalism on the grounds that all that is important is the quality of the furniture and architecture in your palace, and
that it would be a shame to risk it all if the conversion could risk empowering your people for a real peoples revolution. In fact you can
justify many weird conclusions the North Korean regime arrives at. But as far as weapons of mass destruction their logic was spot on. Never will we be
the first to invade them (unless there really was no choice; and why would that come about (in real reality)?