Not right now, but eventually.
I feel it is really up to China to end this. They have the most leverage against NK. They cannot cut off the food supply since so many have already died due to starvation but they can cut off their energy supply and put some real pressure against NK.
We must talk to NK.
We need to stay as far away from this as possible. Bush is not qualified to talk to anybody. Do you really want to add this to his string of errors?
"We must talk to NK."
nah, Democrats try diplomacy and multi-national co-operation. The Repugs spurn diplomacy, go it alone, and bomb the out of everybody, but above all do only that which provides Repug partisan advantage and some kind of gotcha/litmus test to attack the Dems, NatSec be damned.
Even former Sec. of State Baker says the US must talk to NK and other US adversaries if we want to reach any type of agreement. We didn't go to war with Chinese under Nixon and it has worked out okay. We didn't go to war with Russia/Breshnev and it has turned out okay.
Diplomacy CAN and DOES work when done properly.
Of course we need to talk, but theres the horror of what Bush will say. He is not qualified to talk to anybody. He is the least trusted leader on the planet. , I wouldn't buy an apple from that lying son of a .
Screw the talk! You yellow bellied libs want to talk while NK keeps building nuclear weapons!?!? Just like you all ed up 9/11 you want to do it again? Not on our watch you won't.
Right on Nascar! We need to use the successful example of Iraq and spread that throughout the world!
Hey, has there been an attack on US soil since 9/11? NO!
Cut and run is NOT an option except for you libs.
Right on Nascar!!!! Why attack here when we gratefully send our kids to die over there? It saves the bad guys alot of trouble.
I love you faux macho NASCAR knee-jerk dumb s.
You're as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, great sport!
"an attack on US soil since 9/11"
Has an attack been attepted? NO! OBL knew attacks directly in USA would be extremely difficutl, esp after the sleeping Repugs were awakened by WTC. So OBL succeeded, with WTC attack, in drawing the US military into much easier, closer killing grounds in foreign countries surrounded by other Muslim countries. As direct result, the US military will waste more lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than OLB murdered in the WTC. Wasting US lives with no benefit to the USA.
"you all ed up 9/11"
The Repugs are 100% responsible for derelection of NatSec duty between Jan-Sep 2001 that permitted the WTC. The Repugs did nothing, were asleep at the wheel, abandoned their NatSec guard duty. The Dems were NOT involved, but keep the slime and lies coming.
"Cut and run is NOT an option"
Failing in Aghanistan and Iraq is NOT an option, so why are the Repugs NOT doing the things necessary to try recover in those countries what the Repugs' incompetence has perhaps irretrievably lost? Cut-and-run is a sane upgrade compared to the what the incompetent Repugs are doing now.
Nascar fans are as close as they'll get to turning left.
when is japan sendin out their gundams, mechas....
Right, because things have gone so well on *your* watch.Screw the talk! You yellow bellied libs want to talk while NK keeps building nuclear weapons!?!? Just like you all ed up 9/11 you want to do it again? Not on our watch you won't.
The bad idea poorly executed that is Iraq has made nukes the only viable self-defense option in the eyes of both Iran and NK.
Note to pacifist/isolationists - This is PRECISELY why you do anything necessary to stop third world countries from gaining nuclear capability. Because once that genie is out of the bottle there's almost never a way to put it back. Once a rogue state gets its hands on a bomb, your military option goes out the window. Take NK for example - It's very satisfying to talk about the utter destruction we could put down on them but it would be so irresponsible of us to pre-emptively strike them that it's just out of the question. They might not be able to reach us with a weapon (yet) but they could certainly evaporate Seoul or maybe even Tokyo. Once an unstable state is armed the stakes are just too high to do anything but talk, sanction, coax, wait and try to destabilize. All very unsatisfying and defensive measures. They're now driving and we're left reacting.
This is why a realistic threat of a nuclear program in Iraq and now Iran merit(ed) a pre-emptive military response. Time is on their side. Dither and talk and sanction and you only give them time to develop that trump card. Once they've got it, we're screwed. The political debate over the fairness of us, a nuclear power, trying to dictate against that to others is just so ing irrelevant ... It's like arguing that if you the honest homeowner can have a gun then why shouldn't the criminal down the street? We're not ing about Britain or France or some other respectable civilized country that can be counted on to behave rationally ... We're talking about third-world dip s who are barely out of the trees now being armed with hydrogen bombs. It's expedient common sense, people. Stomp them out hard before they're armed otherwise you're left with the options of A.) Being blackmailed by them or B.) Trading cities.
Where the is my mongoose?
almost never? how many time this happened? How many nuke wars did we have? Up to this point there is only one country in the world that used nukes in combat. (hopefully it stays that way)
Keeping said weapons out of the hands of rogue states is a great way to assure it stays that way don't you agree?
define rogue. Is Pakistan rogue (muslim+dictator)?
While Pakistan does have some issues (mainly with India), I do not see them in the same light as Iran/NK.
by issues you mean wars.
funny - the relationship between the countries improved after they both got nukes.
i'm not happy about the spreading of the nuclear weapons, but preemptive bombing is not the anwser. And with US having such a big stockpile of nukes, it's a bit hypocritical to bash other countries to want them.
Some simply cannot be TRUSTED if (when) they acquire them don't you think? Are you comfortable with nutjobs like Kim Jong or Ahmadinejad behind the trigger of a nuke? I'm not and I'm pretty sure the rest of the world isn't either.
Anything?
So lobbing a pre-emptive nuke or two would be included in that?
I am far from a "pacifist". I am a pragmatist. Military action in either Iran or North Korea is just stupid and short sighted. You seem to be making the case that we MUST respond militarily to everything.
I just don't see how this is any different than what happened with the Soviet Union for 50 years, other than the difference is that the newer nuclear powers are much smaller.
MAD would mean far more for such a small country, even barring other considerations. Add those in and you get some interesting results.
Let's step this up and see where your logic leads.
Let's assume we do nothing and North Korea really does get a nuke.
Let's further assume, as you do, that they are unstable enough to use it, on Japan, SK, or the US.
What do you think will happen?
Technically, yes. Would a situation ever warrant a pre-emptive nuke strike? NO!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
