Reply With QuoteI'm not asking what Kerry should do about Saddam.
I'm asking what the US shoud do about North Korea.
The answer remains "nothing" despite your attempt to change the subject.
I'll let John Kerry address the rest of your rejoinders...
Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - John Kerry 10/9/02
"...without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses." - John Kerry 01/23/03
I'm not asking what Kerry should do about Saddam.
I'm asking what the US shoud do about North Korea.
The answer remains "nothing" despite your attempt to change the subject.
Of course not because NKorea actually has a real army.Not when said dictator has the ability to launch strikes against the US West Coast.
Yes -- nothing.
Yes, nothing because it is an entirely different situation. About time you understood that.
The only difference is how many deaths are palatable to you. You admit he's that much more dangerous and more likely to use WMDs on us than Saddam -- who as it turns out passed up two chances. And we should do nothing about this bigger threat to America and the world?
No . Hussein could be dealt with, Il Sung requires a different approach. What I said from the beginning.
Go hump a chair already.
What approach is that?
Negotiation?
With a terrorist?
A payoff?
Please explain.
Something other than an invasion. What do you recommend?
I'm asking you.
Something other than an invasion.
Since you are asking me then presumably you have an alternative in mind. If you don't, then you have nothing to offer to this discussion.
I understand you are afraid to say anything because you don't exactly know what the administration's approach is going to be from here on in, but please try to think for yourself.
Oh yes, I am afraid to speak my mind.
Different scenario, you don't invade because that is not possible. It was possible with Iraq. You resort to alternative forms of pressure on the North Koreans. Your underlying assumption is that you have to treat all hostile regimes in the same manner which is naive.
Here's a pic of a getting humped. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
Nice of you to admit it.Oh yes, I am afraid to speak my mind.Actually it isn't.Your underlying assumption is that you have to treat all hostile regimes in the same manner which is naive.
Just asking questions, cupcake.
Let me know your NK plan once you finish googling the State Department website, m'kay?
Yes, for we know that I'm always "afraid" to speak my mind.
I don't have to google anything to speak it and unfortunately for you, you have no response.
Either you have no idea what you would do in North Korea or you're afraid to say anything because you don't know what the US government plans on doing. Admit it either way -- you'll feel better.
If we actually talked about what we thought as opposed to parrotting whatever party line we may ascribe to, there would actually BE a discussion.
Like I said, you pressure the North Koreans without invading them. Perhaps that does mean developing a more aggressive threat posture militarily. Perhaps you act more aggressively to cut off their weapons deals with the rest of the world. Perhaps reducing the amount of aid they receive.
The US has already tried encouraging them to give up their nuclear program in exchange for technical assistance in developing a power generation facility and apparently that did not work out.
I support no party line, unlike yourself.
Don't say what I support, pinhead. I would support anyone who had a real answer for this issue.There's no telling whether that would've worked as the current administration abandoned any agreements previously reached. It would be difficult to go back to any type of bribe/ransom scheme after Iraq and the "axis of evil" rhetoric -- at least until after the election. I'm not sure more aggression is the answer either, given the fact Kim is a complete nutjob.The US has already tried encouraging them to give up their nuclear program in exchange for technical assistance in developing a power generation facility and apparently that did not work out.
Perhaps the best way to work this is through a third party. Not Europe because we supposedly don't trust them now and they will likely be busy playing a similar role dealing with Iran and their WMDs. South Korea seems to have been playing this right all along, staying engaged diplomaticly while keeping up in the brinksmanship department. If our goals can be made integrated into theirs something might be worked out at least in the short term. There would be a payoff to the North though.
"Pinhead"? You are the one who assumed that I supported a certain party simply because I disagreed with you.
Again, go find someone to **** you if you are that uptight. TPark is in Cali often. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem searching for your WMDs.
What do you propose that we invade WITH, CD? We gots no troops left.
I assumed you supported a certain party because you had to be asked point blank three times to even produce something resembling an actual opinon of your own.
Bravo to you for having at least one of them drop.
Never advocated it, but that's definitely a point to consider. We couldn't really play big stick even if we wanted to.What do you propose that we invade WITH, CD? We gots no troops left.
Does that strengthen or weaken our position with Kim?
I think the U.S. has to cut the rhetoric, it's not helping, back up our 35,000 troops a few kilometers (one thing W. has done) and let the South Koreans guard the area around the DMZ. Korea for Koreans. From what I am to believe, N. Korea's most advanced missiles can reach Alaska on a good day, not the West coast, so there is a threat but it's not to the continental U.S., yet, still N. Korea's missiles can hit all of Japan and Indonesia This could be disastrous to all the world economies and to millions of Asians.
I'm not sure whether these 'rumored' longer range missiles can even be presently converted to outfit nuclear weapons. I suppose that kinda info is hard to come by.
www.kimsoft.com/korea/nk-nukes.htmN Korea is believed to have a limited number of Taepodong-x ICBMs (long range - America) hidden in underground tunnels.
The Taepo Dong-2 ICBM has a maximum range of 6,200 miles. The US DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) estimates that the missile has a range of about 4,650 miles with large nuclear warheads and 6,200 miles with smaller warheads. At the extreme of 6,200 miles, the missile could reach all major West Coast cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,,,) and reach as far east as Chicago.
cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TR...ad.02.htmlSEN. EVAN BAYH (D), INDIANA: They've fired missiles over Japan. What is the likelihood that they currently have a missile capable of hitting the West Coast of the United States?
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: I think the declassified answer is yes, they can do that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions