posted on February 10, 2005 09:02:19 AM new
I'm sure what ever decision Bush makes he'll have a bunch of protesters lined up somewhere.
**********************************
Two men sit behind bars,one sees mud the other sees stars.
posted on February 10, 2005 09:16:21 AM new
Flatten the capitol cities of both countries this afternoon?
Someone would complain.
Invade one or the other or both to stop the Nuke plans?
Someone would complain.
Ignore the threat and in six years take the blame when New York City goes poof?
Someone would complain.
It sucks to be President.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on February 10, 2005 09:25:38 AM new
Good question, maggie. I wait with anticipation to how the 'lefties' think these issues would best be dealt with.
I'm like you in that I don't know what is the 'best' thing to do. But agree that no matter what we do....work towards resolving it though talk...encouraging more dialog between the other nations who also are concerned about both NK and Iran having nukes...or deciding to take action of some sort....this President WILL be blamed by the left.
----------
replay - That's one of the things I most appreciate about this President....he doesn't care WHO complains....he does what he thinks is in this Nations best interests. Polls be damned....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 09:37:17 AM new
I agree, talks have failed, North Korea has ignored all warnings, they need to be stopped, as does Iran... hello.. wake up the rest of the world!
posted on February 10, 2005 09:55:29 AM new
And as recently as this past week, Condi Rice has been pushing the EU to be more forceful/insistant in their 'talks' with Iran.
But the EU is in the middle of changing their position on Arm sales with China. Looks like the EU has decided lift their embargo of such sales.
I hope they all remember that THIS President does what he says he's going to do...it's not just talk.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 09:56:28 AM new
The nuclear problem in the Middle East is not going away anytime soon. The U.S.
(Christian) supports Israel (Judaism-Christian), which has never stated if they have nuclear weapons or not and has destroyed Iran's (Muslim) attempt to do so. Korea has nothing to worry about unless large reserves of crude are discovered.
[ edited by hillbillymo on Feb 10, 2005 10:04 AM ]
posted on February 10, 2005 10:04:51 AM newI hope they all remember that THIS President does what he says he's going to do...it's not just talk.
Again, I agree, this President does not shy away from confrontation...... but... how many countries can we take on with so little help from other nations.. yes we are a super power, but even we have our limits.. surely we will bankrupt ourselves in the process?
posted on February 10, 2005 10:11:24 AM new
This is nothing new with North Korea. You need to check back and see how long they have had them. I think it goes back to the Korean war so this is nothing new. As for Iran they probably have had them for quite some time also along with Iraq. It is something that has to be dealt with without confrontation. I also think when you search nuclear arms that most countries have them. It is and has never been a peaceful world. There are to many different ideas with many different nationalities and each one thinks they are supreme power. It is now how everyone gets along.
posted on February 10, 2005 10:33:48 AM new
Well, we can all hope that N.korea and Iran have a nuclear accident and blow themselves up and then everybody will be happy...............except for Iran and N.Korea of course.
posted on February 10, 2005 11:26:58 AM new
North and South Korea, a nasty little division left over from the cold war, is where the PRC plate is rising against the US plate. The excuse of WWII has worn thin and the US is maintaining incursions into sovereign nations that no longer make (economic strategic political judicial any) sense. We sit on a powder keg that could suddenly explode as the tail attempts to wag the dog on either side of this divide.
We confront China on the Taiwan issue, also. Why can't there be two China's? With one umbrella military defending both of them? Let's see, with China and Hong Kong and Macao and Bangladesh and Vietnam, the diplomatic inclusion of Taiwan would bring the number of nations within this hegemony to six or more.
China has no need to attack us. The Chinese 'swim the river' just as well as any other wetback. As with Mexico the easiest way to stem the tide is to improve the quality of life in their home country. This policy (intentional or not) is eroding our standard of living and allowing economic power to tilt in favor of the Yuan due to China's artificial exchange rate.
We cannot be all things to all people. As in the debacle of Vietnam we need to change with reality and adjust our strategic positioning to the realities of 21st century capabilities. We need to identify objectives, mount missions, accomplish an identifiable goal, and withdraw according to plan.
The presence in South Korea stems from a conflict two generations ago. China has a nasty flea on it's ass and we are corralling it, at a considerable drain on our resources.
IMHO, North Korea is more likely to screw up and cause an environmental disaster in the Asian ecosphere than to manage credible damage to any US asset. We should work towards standing down and letting China deal with their little shop of horror.
We have proved the ability to confront China. It would be a cold day when the powers that be in China allowed anything to interfere with the selling of Korean cars to the US. Why are we wasting our military?
posted on February 10, 2005 11:45:06 AM new
Excellent post Parklane, you have made some very valid points.
When you say:We need to identify objectives, mount missions, accomplish an identifiable goal, and withdraw according to plan.
Am I understanding you to mean that the US should take more interest in it's future health and growth, and less time and resources on curing the woes of other nations? Or are you saying, we should pick our battles more carefully..and not take so much upon ourselves?
posted on February 10, 2005 12:01:16 PM newAgain, I agree, this President does not shy away from confrontation......
But for the time being...and what he has been criticized by the left for...is calling other nation's into the fray to work this out together with NK...rather than it JUST being between the US and NK. Now we have heard from NK that they are no longer interested in talks. So be it.
but...how many countries can we take on with so little help from other nations..
Are you referring to all the nations that have signed the treaty to stop the spread of NW's worldwide?
Do you hold them responsible to uphold their end of an agreement they signed saying they ALSO supported this as the best way to deal with the problem?
yes we are a super power, but even we have our limits..
Imo, this isn't ONLY a US problem....and for the time being no one has called to send in our troops. I think some might be jumping the gun.
surely we will bankrupt ourselves in the process?
And the alternative is? Again, I'd like to understand why you feel we are the ONLY nation that has an interest in this problem and the ONLY nation that would be willing to 'pay' to attempt to keep it from occurring.
To allow all of the third world nations to have nukes...even with those who have stated their intentions towards the US?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 12:06:07 PM new
Also wanted to add...
I don't see NK being the same threat, at the current time, as I do an Iran with NW's.
Should the idiot who rules NK [jing-jong Ill] decide to attack anyone...the decision will have been made.
But with us involved in the ME right now....and Iran appearing to support Iraq in it's efforts against the US...I think that situation presents more of a 'present' danger than NK does. And the US, again, is not the only one 'handling' the current situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 12:18:40 PM newAm I understanding you to mean that the US should take more interest in it's future health and growth, and less time and resources on curing the woes of other nations? Or are you saying, we should pick our battles more carefully..and not take so much upon ourselves?
I'm not sure what agenda you are trying to co-opt me into with the buzz phrase 'health and growth', but we're both feeling the same end of the elephant.
posted on February 10, 2005 12:49:32 PM new
Actually, I disagree, Linda. NK is a bigger nuclear threat. As you said yourself NK is run by a lunatic. All he has to do is have a bad hair day (ohboy!) and give the order to do something with his nukes.
Say what you want about Iran, they at least have a reasonably "stable" leadership. They may actually decide to use nukes, but it wouldn't be an off-thecuff whim, and they at least would consider the effects of retaliation.
However, I do agree that cleaning out Iran is a much bigger priority and should probably come first. But not for the reason of hunting out nukes.
The problem in NK is simply one of those "single-bullet" solutions if you know hwat I mean
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on February 10, 2005 01:20:00 PM new
replay....now that I've picked myself up off the floor that anyone here disagrees with something I say ....I do understand and agree with your concern, especially on the 'one person' control in NK. But Iran and many Muslim nations would love nothing better than to destroy Israel....with NW's that would be much easier. And for them to support, enable and possibly sell to other countries...concerns me greatly. I don't see it as 'defensive' postering from them as I do from NK's idiot.
I'd love to hear how you think the US should deal with the present situation, ie: Jong-Ill's recent statement about no more talks...etc. Would you support going back to what I considered the 'bribing' that was done to supposedly keep him from building these weapons in the first place?....especially now that they have them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 10, 2005 01:22 PM ]
posted on February 10, 2005 01:42:15 PM new
Not at all. GWB has had several years since 9/11 to build up the CIA. I think SOMEONE out there would have the training and guts to simply "kill-Ill". It's not like he's in hiding like Saddam was. International incident? So what?
Iran? I don't have all the good info about US troop numbers and deployments around the world. I don't know how big an impact an invasion would have on our overall strength. We did start pulling out a lot of the big war equipment when the "mission accomplished" banner went up
We need to leave Iran alone, but make them see the need to behave and play nice. How? Dunno. Like I said, it sucks to be Prez.
One answer would be to move in immediately and do the Iraq-thing there too. I do think that this would be a mistake. You want a real holy war? Just mess with Iran. You'd have dozens of times the resisters and terrorists you had in Iraq. Remember, most of the Iraqis DO in fact want us there. Not so with the Iranians. We have to give them enough rope to hang themselves.
I just looked in my crystal ball. Here's what's going to happen:
We'll set up an initally shaky but eventually stable democracy in Iraq. We'll have success there eventually. However, Iran (or somebody else supplied by Iran) will nuke Israel. We will then nuke Iran.
Unless Pakistan and India go at it again. That would really complicate things.
The only final way to beat Iran is to completely destroy it. Too many people just don't get what Islam ("The religion of peace" ) is all really about.
[ edited by replaymedia on Feb 10, 2005 01:45 PM ]
posted on February 10, 2005 02:01:01 PM newIslam ("The religion of peace" )
Oh please. that phrase is patent barbra streisand and hackneyed. One of the lefties posted, 'fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity'. This is worse than fighting for peace, the Islamofascist fig-puckers are fighting to spread their culture and religion, and to destroy ours.
That is sooooooo peaceful.
How about:
Islam ("The religion of killing dissenters" )
Much more accurate. The Catholics can get a new motto, the Muslims won this one fair and square.
posted on February 10, 2005 02:05:49 PM new
"the Islamofascist fig-puckers are fighting to spread their culture and religion, and to destroy ours."
Very well put.
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web! http://www.replaymedia.com
posted on February 10, 2005 02:29:24 PM newAre you referring to all the nations that have signed the treaty to stop the spread of NW's worldwide? Do you hold them responsible to uphold their end of an agreement they signed saying they ALSO supported this as the best way to deal with the problem?
Yes, and yes, I do hold them responsible to uphold their end of the agreement... but ultimately I trust only the US..for our own protection and when it comes down to military action.. we usually end up carrying the brunt of it..
I agree with Replay, North Korea's mad dictator is very dangerous. Just the way he is flaunting the fact he has nuclear weapons to use against us.. shows he isn't stable..
It may well be all bluff and bluster,an attention getting ploy, who knows.. but if it isn't a bluff, then we have a maniac with his finger on the button...
posted on February 10, 2005 02:37:45 PM new
replay - I would support your idea on the CIA operative....but I'm not sure I can believe we'd be contemplating that options since it is against International law. The left in this country would go ape-sh1t-nuts crazy if we tried something like that...and probably more would fall into line of some on the American left who believe 'American's should be tried for International crimes' already...rather than supporting their country on attempting to solve the problem with less people dying.
On the troop deployment worldwide...last I read it was somewhere over 300,000 and under 350,000.
On behave and play nice....lol.... maybe more sanctions and more disapproval from more countries? I don't know either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 02:47:24 PM new
maggie, I agree with what you said in your last post. I seem to have given the appearance of not thinking NK was a HUGE threat...if I did...I apologize. I do believe they are and do see this 'unbalanced' leader as being a 'time bomb'.
I was just stating that now...while we're currently fighting in Iraq...than Iran presents us with a more urgent danger...and not only from trying to aquire NW's.
But this put a big smile on my face to read you say...
but ultimately I trust only the US..for our own protection and when it comes down to military action..we usually end up carrying the brunt of it..
I couldn't agree more.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 09:25:20 PM newFlatten the capitol cities of both countries this afternoon?
What exactly does that solve. Do you think that the weapons are being held in the capitols or do you just want to kill for the hell of it?
Invade one or the other or both to stop the Nuke plans?
NK already has them so what makes you think they won't use them if we invade?
It's US vs Russia all over again. Both sides are going to huff and puff and preen and act bad ass but at the end of the day, we both know that each has the ability to destroy the other so both find a way to co-exist. Amazing isn't it - nuclear weaponry as the ultimate tool of diplomacy.
BTw Linda - Iran does not have a delivery system capable of doing harm to us no matter how more dangerous you think they may be. The brits are much more at risk than we are.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 10, 2005 09:42:41 PM new
fenix - To be more clear...I believe Iran is supporting the terrorists against our soldiers in Iraq...both with money and soldiers.
And the investigators are saying they're further along that we think they are.
But why would you believe the UK would be more 'at risk' than Israel, from the Iranians? I have read in the last couple of days that Tony Blair is trying to enforce much more restrictive border movements/crossings than ever before though.
Do you think that could be why the EU is not putting much pressure on Iran to stop? Because they don't want to piss them off? The latest today in the news is Irans threat to 'make us feel the 'heat' should we decide to use force against them. What 'heat' do you think they meant then?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 10, 2005 09:51:48 PM newIt's US vs Russia all over again.
You know it's kinda ironic that with the tensions in the world these days that the USA and Russia might just have to become allies in the fight and/or struggle to stop the proliferation of nuclear and other WMD's around the globe from falling into the hands of terrorists that would use them against either country.
posted on February 10, 2005 11:17:34 PM newU.S. Newswire
To: Assignment Desk and Daybook Editor
Contact: Professor Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee, 202-320-8434
News Advisory:
Iran Policy Committee (IPC) is holding a press conference on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2005 at 10 a.m. in the West Room of the National Press Club of Washington, to release its report on U.S. policy options on Iran. IPC is comprised of former officials from the White House, State Department, Pentagon, intelligence agencies, the Congress, and experts from think tanks and universities.
For too long, Washington has been divided between those who favor engagement with and those who support military strikes against the Iranian regime. President George W. Bush advocates working with the Iranian people as opposed to the regime in Tehran but has not explicitly called for regime change. By calling for change in Tehran based on Iranians instead of Americans, IPC stresses the potential for a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change.
Iran is emerging as the primary threat against the United States and its allies: Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons, continuing support for and involvement with terrorist networks, publicly-stated opposition to the Arab-Israel peace process, disruptive role in Iraq, expansionist radical ideology, and its denial of basic human rights to its own population are challenges confronting U.S. policymakers.
IPC enters the debate in Washington over Iran policy by think tanks that also published reports on Iran-Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), The Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (TWI). In trying to solve the puzzle posed by Iran, IPC's report suggests that Iranian opposition groups play a central role in U.S. policymaking.
IPC members plan to be accessible to the press during the rollout of the IPC policy paper and upon request.
WHEN: Thursday, Feb. 10 at 10 a.m.
WHERE: West Room, National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington D.C. 20045
http://www.usnewswire.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on February 11, 2005 05:33:07 PM new
Wow, for the first time in a long time I have just read very good points from both the left and right. Its shows that both sides have some independent thinking people. Maybe posters like Linda K and others of her mind set will be forced to think with an open mind. Its seems Linda K is so brain washed by her side that no matter what her side says or does she repeats and supports like a robot parrot. Linda, bear,yellowtoes, and a few others really need to get a life.
In another post I asked how a guy could get on the White House pay roll for spreading their propaganda. Heck if the price was right I might become a good capitalist and switch sides. If the price was right for the next 4 years I might preach the Bush White House words so we could confuse and divide the American people. Gee, just think I could say things like,its a hard job,the world is safer,the U.S. is safer,we are winning in Iraq,the economy is getting better,I am creating American jobs,no child left behind,I will protect our borders, I will reduce the National and Trade deficit and finally my faith tells me we are on the right track. On second thought NO the White House doesn't have enough money for me to sell my soul.
HEY MIDDLE CLASS YOU BETTER PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT IS HAPPENING
