Can someone explain this to me?

jiggerj raises a good question. I try to respond.

1) Saddam had a track record of using WMDs. Kim Loon doesn't (yet).
2) Saddam was targeting US politicians. not good.
3) Saddam was Muslim. most international terrorists are Muslim, esp the ones targeting the US. We could not have the two combined.
4) military action in Iraq was feasible. NKor, not so much. we took the obvious option.
5) US protects US interestes. US is better off without Saddam. happily, so is the rest of the world, including Iraq itself.

also; Saddam proved he had an expansionist mindset (warring for years wi Iran, invading Kuwait). I suspect if NKor moved into SKor we would respond.

I rather wish we would have gotten the oil. Maybe I wouldn't be paying $3.50/gallon for gas.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Welll then...make yourself a copy of this section of 12333, and this thread including your statement: fold them up and put it in your back pocket. ( your get out of jail free card) Get yourself on over to to North Korean and get to work!

This said nothing. What is your point, if you have one?

I think he was totally hinting at you being ninja enough to do it.

I don't know. Your picture looks kind of old, like Walter Matthau.

I think he was trying to come in here and 'win' a conversation. That crap don't fly with me. Either offer sound reasoning for or against a topic, or stay the hell out of it.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by grubblesnert

 

Welll then...make yourself a copy of this section of 12333, and this thread including your statement: fold them up and put it in your back pocket. ( your get out of jail free card) Get yourself on over to to North Korean and get to work!

This said nothing. What is your point, if you have one?

I think he was totally hinting at you being ninja enough to do it.

I don't know. Your picture looks kind of old, like Walter Matthau.

Thank you for understanding!
At someone gets were I was coming from. Just try to have a little harmless fun

Saddam's killing had to do with 911. NK hasn't been accused of being involved with actually harming us. If there is ever another assault to our country, or one of our allies, and it is tied in with NK somehow, then we would take military action against them.

So far they are just a big bluster. If that changes, so will our response.

Originally posted by jiggerj
It was only believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was only believed that these invisible WMD's were a threat to the world. So we decimated the country and made sure Saddam Hussein got very dead. No weapons, no threat, but Hussein is still very dead.

Kim Jung Un definitely has weapons of mass destruction, and he definitely threatened the world with them. And yet the little fat boy has yet to receive that much needed hole in his head. Why?

I don't agree with our invasion of these countries - but if you want to get technical, isn't using poisonous gas on hundreds of thousands of people in their own homeland using a weapon of mass destruction? I don't see the word "nuclear" anywhere in the term WMD.

"No weapons. No threat." That's kind of a hyperbole.

If we were going there strictly to liberate minority groups, especially women and gays in those countries, I would be on board. I don't think we have to tolerate blatant bigotry, especially of the violent variety, in the name of state sovereignty.

reply to post by seabag

Short answer - Korea has no oil.

In addition, they border China and the US doesnt want to risk war with a nation which can defend itself.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
Because he has about a million pieces of artillery pointed at Seoul and working nukes. There is a difference between engaging an enemy that is attempting to develop WMDs but is pretty much harmless at the moment, and engaging an enemy that is capable of mass destruction at this very moment and waiting for an excuse.

In reality, you are wrong ... as you always are.

The "truth" of the situation is this ... Saddam, most likely HAD WMD's. He had WMD's that were used "by accident" against Iran. However, they had the good sense not to use them, and the intelligence to destroy them.

The only mass murderers here, are Americans ...They decide "muslims" are their enemy, and anything that looks "taliban" is to be killed.

And these same americans have the audacity, to talk about nazis. Their use of the word "taliban" or "muslim" is equivalent with the Nazis use of the word "jew".

That is America, and it's allies ... and they're looking for an excuse to bring their wars to any other country they can.

Kim "little" Jung, made a big rattle. But the rest of us in the world, the world THEY think they're saving. Didn't give a hoot, and basically are telling Americans, if ya wanna save the world ... don't point that big gun on others, point it at your own head.

Actually, I think it should be turned into a bumper sticker ...

Originally posted by gladtobehere
In addition, they border China and the US doesnt want to risk war with a nation which can defend itself.

I doubt China would help N.Korea.

In response to why we will not be invading NK any time soon, boils down to a few key facts.

1. NK is still protected by both China and Russia, we would have to go through them to do so and as of this point and time i dont think that either country feels threatend enough to bother asking for our help.

2. Invading a soveriegn nation is a difficult task, with the current state of affairs and the fact that we have troops spread through out the world organizing it is problemmatic. we still have troops in hot spots in the middle east that would need to be called out and repurposed. Something at this time we are not willing to do.

3. We have a terrible record for fighting wars that involove jungle combat, though our technology has improved we would still be fighting a people on there soil in there terrain that we honestly cant duplicate with enough realism to properly train our troops.

4. Allies, you do not go into a war without them, and at this time we do not have them for the above stated actions.

and on a side note as to why we dont just cut the head off the dragon so to say, It would do no good, when his father died the head withered away from the dragon just to be replaced by another younger head, so to assume that this would not happen again with another head just popping up with a new battle cry of they killed our glorious leader!!!! and an even more resilant hatred for the "west".

To bring down a country like NK it will not take tanks and bombs and guns from the outside world, but information time and patience. You will first have to convince the populace that there leaders are wrong and leading them down a dark path to self distruction. You will then be able to arm the citizens some with weapons but more with knowledge so that they can overthrow there leaders and government to creat a better world for there kids and themselves.


just my opinion though


Thank you and good day/night depending on your location in this universe.

Originally posted by HairlessApe

If we were going there strictly to liberate minority groups, especially women and gays in those countries, I would be on board. I don't think we have to tolerate blatant bigotry, especially of the violent variety, in the name of state sovereignty.

That's exactly right.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by HairlessApe

If we were going there strictly to liberate minority groups, especially women and gays in those countries, I would be on board. I don't think we have to tolerate blatant bigotry, especially of the violent variety, in the name of state sovereignty.

That's exactly right.

I guess my point is... I think the tyrants running those countries (or faction leaders within those countries) needed to be stopped. The sad part is, although we had a perfectly justifiable reason to stop them, we made up another reason instead.

So much cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Short answer - Obama is in office rather than Bush.

Obama promised to engage rogue states. He still thinks his gift of gab works everywhere its tried. N Korea also has a long history of brinksmanship but no history of actually doing anything.

I think this is an overly-simplistic answer which is not entirely true. The last part I agree with, however, and I'm sure that's a big part of the reason. Kim Jong Il was also doing the aggressive posturing thing, before his death, and missle tests, etc. I'm pretty sure some of that did stretch back into the bush era, and I don't recall him doing much about it. Quite possibly because of the factor you mentioned (hot air bag syndrome).

On the other hand, quite a lot of people believe we had ulterior motives to get involved with iraq. Reasons have been put for that range from oil, to the more logical idea that war profits people invested in companies like blackwater, as well as those investing in companies which produce military tech (aka bush & cronies), up to the notion that we just wanted to get a good military foothold in the middle east for whatever reasons....

reply to post by jiggerj


its obvious..

NK is not a threat to Israel at the moment..

as soon as they are,

the US's crooked senators will end American troops & $$

reply to post by jiggerj


Because it is believed that North Korea has nuclear weapons. Not Sarin, or Mustard gas. South Korea is a First World country with many good people. It is most likely that any war with North Korea, may lead to a detonation of one or more nuclear warheads. North Korea has a very short range ballistic missile program and would likely target South Korea or Japan. Any Nuclear detonation would have an affect on South Korea, China and Japan. These countries are all either close trading partners or allies of the United States. Massive loss of life and large scale radiation poisoning, in any of these countries, would greatly affect the United States both economically and politically.


V

1. Their missiles can't reach outside Korea
2. It would risk a war with the Chinese
3. Invading yet another Country would be too costly.