 |
|
PrinceBimz
|
|
Why do they fear a US attack? The US have made absolutely no indications or anything about attacking NK. I think NK is using this as an excuse to build up their nuclear weapons. For what reason would US attack NK for anyway? President BUSH specifically told them US is not going to attack them. Seems like to me with NK's lame threats of claiming the world will suffer a horrifying nuclear disaster (as they say) is going far down the wrong road. Oh but the US are the bad guys...WHATEVER.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
PLATO

|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002 time: 23:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
PrinceBimz :
From your previous posts in the OT, there is something you don't seem to know, and that everyone should teach you : sometimes politicians LIE. They don't tell the truth. THey don't tell what they mean. They distort their speech to mislead their listeners. They lie
Bush is confronted to a potential nuclear rabid dog. If he can make this rabid dog harmless with a war, he won't hesitate (like if the chickenhawks hesitate to go to war these days ). Until then, he tries to appease the dog to avoid being bitten. This includes a "calm down, I won't harm you" kind of speech.
Of course NK is fearing an attack : if it is proven they are not a complete threat yet, they'll be attacked immediately, to avoid them fulfilling their nuclear ambition.
I can't understand you're taking anything Bush says as the truth. Bush lies shamelessly, like almost all politicians. Do not trust him, and do not trust any of his competitors. |
Spiffor, while I agree with your lesson to PrinceBimz that politicians do lie, much of what else you mention is not corraberated by the facts.
US policy is to exhaust diplomatic routes until they are exhausted (you may also read this as "until they become fruitless"). After 12 years and 17 UN resolutions to date, Iraq has not complied with theinternational will. The crisis in North Korea is truly in its infancy. The IAEA is working hard to try to develop a diplomatic way to bring North Korea into compliance. The US is trying hard with offers to provide essential needs in exchange for compliance with international treaty. South Korea is working hard. No one on our side of this crisis is calling for any military option now or in the future. As we have seen by the Iraqi process, diplomacy can take years to determine if it has been sucessful or not. Once it has not been, then is when other options are explored.
You are not being fair to the US government
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:26
|
|
I agree I am not fair to the US government, because I tend to exaggerate its hawkishness.
However, I do think the US, like Japan and possibly China, is considering a second Korea war as one of the options (even though these considerations don't make it to the media, unlike the war in Iraq).
I still believe the few things that have been done during 12 years in Iraq equate to nothing : the international comunity let the situation rot, rather than looked for solutions.
Now that Bush II has put Iraq on the table again, it is time to look for a solution. The first suggestion ever of the Bushies was to go to war, to "finish the job".
War IMHO, goes in the general Weltanschauung of the Hawks leading the US, and in general serves the interests of the administration and its clients. Looking for diplomatic solutions doesn't enter in the new doctrine of the White House, which is basically to show everyone who's the boss (hence the hugely increased military budget).
However, since NK is threathening, unlike Iraq, Bush et al. will hesitate to go to war. They'll actively look for a diplomatic solution if it is proven NK can nuke LA. If NK isn't proven threatening, you can be sure the US won't take any chances, exactly like Japan is planning to do, and like China might be considering.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
oh, please. all of them want to see saddam go; after all, who doesn't? (well, we also probably all hope he doesn't become satan's gay lover...)
but it also appears as if most of the nations in that reason barely support the us; sure, these countries will support the us when the time comes, but they don't seem at all happy about it.
indeed, most of them are most wary of the aftermath of the event, something which the bush administration has not been too clear on. iran doesn't want the sunni minority (currently in power) to be wiped out by bitter shiites in the aftermath; the others don't want a kurdistan; the kurds want their own state; the iraqi exiles are divided on how to approach the reconstruction; the saudis and the other arabs don't want a fertile recruiting ground for al-qaeda and other terrorist groups.
bush is going to go to war, there's no doubt about that. noone in the arab world is excited at the prospect, and no doubt all of them want some idea of what's going to happen after the regime changes.
as for speaking of libya, no, i wasn't. as far as i know, he doesn't give a damn about what happens to iraq, so long as he stays in power and can use it as propaganda against the "great american satan".
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|