Mad_Gecko

I think Boatin is right.

We are doing the same as what happened in Afghani (good black though, better than that paki black.. mmmmm Smoke!!).. Ignore the old news for the new news which is old news. new war, new pictures, new cnn coverage ... Forget about what happened last week!.

__________________
[color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass

"If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers."
Confucious

tiger_boy

I think the us should do several things
1. invent cold fusion or effective hydrogen fuel cells. Then ship back all the oil we have now to the middle east going haha, screw you, keep your desert and your religon that is about 1500 years behind christanity and other world religons

2. NK said that they started this because of what happened in Iraq, they need a deterant to keep the us out of their country. i say fine, let china deal with it. honestly. its in their backyard, they have the army to do it, and for once the us wouldn't be the hated agressor....

3. Invent an idiot bomb, mass produce these things, and drop them over the entire world. The premise is that somehow it will elminate every stupid person who is bent on world domination, or just has pointless hatred towards others. while this would eliminate half the world, i believe the survivors would thourghly enjoy a utopia of world peace.

a_divine_martyr

Syria is next in line to get fucked over.

I don't think Bush has the guts to fuck with the Koreans.

Knowing him, he might think they all do nothing but play Diablo 2.

*sigh*

__________________
Censorship and thought control can only exist in secrecy and darkness...

Dragonlich

Although I agree with the idea (even though it'll be unlikely to happen)... if NK said they started the whole nuke thing because of Iraq, they're full of shit. They started this *before* the whole Iraq thing even started! Just another excuse.

james t kirk

You guys kill me. Talking about which country to conquer next. Pros, cons, etc.

You are no different than the fucking Nazis in 1939.

Zeich Heil, Zeich Heil.

Dragonlich

And you're a troll, pure and simple.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

james t kirk

ah, hit a nerve eh.

You don't see the similarities? You have just finished beating Iraq (a country with one tenth your population) and now you are looking for another country (not too tough though) to take on.

WTF?

Germany in 1939 conquered first Austria, then Czekoslovakia, then Poland claiming that it was their right. No country since WW2 has conquered another, let alone 2 countries that I can think of.

The united states would seem to have the taste of blood in its mouth and it likes it. The posters here debating the merits of wheter to attack Iran, or Syria, or North Korea would seem to confirm that.

National pride is one thing. Nationalism is another and it is a slippery slope.

What gives you the right to attack whatever country you do not like?

You have become a nation of conquerers it would seem.

reconmike

Reconmike looks to the north and says.......it might be time to liberate the liberals and draft dodger lovers from their liberal government....hummmmmmmm......................................

The United States of the whole continent of America, has a really nice ring to it..................................

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

james t kirk

Exactly my point.....

Not that you haven't tried before (and lost).

james t kirk

True,

and I am gravely concerned about the Leafs too.

Sigh......

Dragonlich

Look, james... there's a subtle difference between nazi germany trying to occupy, enslave and subjugate the entire world, and the US trying to get rid of certain nasty dictators. If you don't see that, there's not much to discuss.

The US is not evil, as much as some people think it is.

(Oh, I'm not from the USA, and I didn't see any discussion of what country to attack next; I saw a discussion of a potential future attack, and what people thought about it. Again, a subtle difference in goal.)

splck

Maybe it's time for the US to try some diplomatic measures rather than asking what country they should invade next. Going around threatening countries isn't diplomacy, it's arm-twisting and that only breeds resentment.

james t kirk - the leafs are going down my friend...hehe

__________________
nice line eh?

bingle

I personally thought for a long time that Iran was going to be next: You would see a lot of articles in the news demonizing them, accusing them of harbouring terrorists and having weapons of mass destruction, as well as pointing out what a horrible leadership they live under. Now I'm not sure, it may be Syria is next in line.

As far as stopping terrorism goes, however, it seems to me that bombing countries into the stone age and then installing US-friendly regimes and supplying them with weapons is *exactly*what got us 9/11. Maybe instead of trying the same thing over and over again, we should take a new approach.

Look at what we're doing in Iraq, so far. Installing American military dictators against the will of the people, generating huge protests, while all the time ignoring the important social problems faced, including the post-war power vacuum that allowed looting and crime to go unchecked.

Now the Iraqis see us as invading, occupying infidel forces. When the younger generation grows up, remembering their little brother or sister who was killed in the bombing by the US, what are they going to think? They certainly aren't going to feel love for the great Satan, they're going to see us as the source for all of their problems. That sort of thinking is what gets buildings blown up.

If, instead, we treated Afghanistan and Iraq more like post-WWII Japan, we would be setting them up for a much better time. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! Setting up an Alaska-like trust for oil revenues, dividends going as cash directly to the population, rather than into the hands of corrupt government officials or US companies, would make the region incredibly more stable and friendly. Concentrating our efforts on restoring the peace to a torn nation, rather than standing by while criminals rob the people (they sure don't think we're doing it for their benefit now). Giving reconstruction contracts to Iraqi companies, or at least other countries, rather than allowing a handful of politically-connected US companies to snap up the best jobs.

Sorry, I guess that turned into a rant about our ill performance in post-war Iraq rather than the "next step". But perhaps the next time, the American people won't swallow the tale of "Liberation, and weapons of mass destruction".

james t kirk

Well dragon, it depends on your point of view.....

I am sure that in the 1930's, a great many Nazis thought that the last thing they were doing was trying to occupy, enslave, or subjugate. They merely thought that they were protecting their interests. And look what it lead to.

It's all relative to where you stand. I am sure there are a great many people (rightly or wrongly) in the world who perceive the US as an agressive, belligerent, unilateral super power that is out of control.

The threat of the US attacking another country like Syria, or Iran, would seem to me to be a very real possibility at the current time. There does not seem to be any concerted voice of opposition. Any time anyone voices even concern, he or she is labelled as anti-american or a traitor.

Maybe before you guys go beating your chests into another war frenzy you should take a hard look at the realities of war.

warning, not a pretty site

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...567875683.html

reconmike

(edited)Sorry

My wife has asked me not to go into "the" box.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Dragonlich

Ah, James... and you assume that pro-war people do not know how brutal and deadly war is?

I know war is nasty, but sometimes *not* going to war leads to more, even nastier problems. For example, in the case of Iraq: less than 1,000 dead civilians during the war, as opposed to an estimated 20,000 dead civilians each year under Saddam's rule.
(And of course, the infamous pre-world war 2 appeasement of Hitler, instead of standing up and saying no.)

You cannot say "let's not fight, ever" just because civilians and soldiers will die in a war - if you do, the people that don't give a rat's arse about such things (Saddam and friends) win.

Pheatius

I think we will (for the most part) kick back until after election 2004. We may do a limit strike against Syria, but taking over another country/regime change will have to wait a while.

And I agree with rogue49, North Korea may be crazy, but we are not. China will slap their little puppy around and make them act all nice for the world.

james t kirk

Well dragon, i guess i am very conflicted about the entire war.

I hear some of the pro points that are made, but i still don't have a warm fuzzy about this. Getting rid of Saddam was fine by me, it's just that i failed to see why it had to be done right there and then. There was 2 other compromise positions before the UN that would have allowed for a bit more time, a bit more diplomacy, and maybe could have spared a few lives. I will agree that I do not think for a minute that the US EVER deliberatly targeted civilians, but like it or not, innocent people got killed, or in the case of that kid, hurt really bad.

Whatever the truth is, of this I am sure. We'll never know one way or the other.

The funny thing about this was that the US bombed the shit out of every gov't everything EXCEPT the Iraqi Ministry of Oil Production. Hmmmm.

Very conflicted

Dragonlich

Hmm... perhaps it's *not* because the US wants to take over all the oil (as some people think), but because they want to find out where Saddam's money came from, and where it is now? That'd be kinda interesting, wouldn't it? And incidentally, it's also what the US government claims.

Why on earth would the US need that ministry to steal the Iraqi oil? They know where the oil is, they can see the friggin' oil wells everywhere. There's no need to protect that ministry for this purpose.

james t kirk

Because it's relevant to the production of oil.

You need head office, like it or not.

Dragonlich

It's not *that* important for oil production. It is *that* important to find the hidden fortunes Saddam stole from his people...

gibber71

I think to ease some tensions in the middle east,Bush should work on a bona fide peace plan for Isreali's and Palestinian's regarding Palestinian statehood rather than to go after N.Korea.The North Koreans already got the message from the decisive action taken on Iraq.

Dragonlich

Already being done, with the "roadmap to peace" thing. Now that there's a moderate prime-minister in the Palestinian territories, we might see some progress there.

And of course, it's the North-Koreans that are threatening war here, not the US...

darkmagex

there is no way we will go into North Korea, we all should udnerstand that the military situation is extremely far different from Iraq

first off the US forces invading iraq were able to cross over an undefended border from multiple fronts to attack the country. If we went into NK, the only route is through South Korea, through a border defended by millions of combat hardened troops.

not going to happen people

Daval

I think the North Korea should be #1 on the priority list. They have a massive army, they have nucleur weapons, and they have an insane leader much much much much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was making threats towards the US.

I do think though that Mr. Bush will keep his eyes in the middle east and Syria. Which is a big mistake.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

Memalvada

A picture says more than a thousand words:



I dont think the US will go after Syria or North Korea. I dont think Bush is THAT stupid.

__________________
"The weak are food for the strong, so die and let me feast!" - Makoto Shishio (RK)

Liquor Dealer

North Korea is a serious problem - a very serious problem. But to who (or is that whom?)?

North Korea is a very serious problem to Japan - They have proven they have the capability to reach out and touch Japan. Japan has stated - very clearly, that if North Korea loads a WMD onto a missle that this act in itself will be considered an act of war and will be dealt with as such. This action, by the way would automatically draw the US and others into a war with North Korea.

North Korea is a threat in many ways to China. First, North Korea is China's bastard step child. Anything NK does comes back to haunt China. China is perhaps overly concerned about the balance of power in Asia. Japan's economy is a concern and threats to Japan could adversley even effect China's economy. The removal of NK as it now exists would definitely upset their applecart. When it gets to the point of push coming to shove I personally believe it will be China that reigns NK back in. Their current actions are a temper tantrum they are attempt to throw to coerce the US and others into meeting their economic demands - They may or may not be bluffing - to prove they are not they will have to use one of these weapons, probably in a test, to prove they have it - the offering of such proof is going to be considered an act of war by Japan and China is very much aware of the consequence.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Pacifier

According to Mr Bushs "logic" the USA hast to go to war with NK:

- NK has Nukes, they admitted it
- NK has or develops missiles that could reach the USA
- NK is ruled by dictator, his people are starving and Kim gives a shit about it.
- NK is part of the "axis of evil"

All this reasons were enough to go to war with Iraq (although some seem to be more or less faked, see WMDs ). All in all NK is much more of thread than iraq ever was, so why not go to war with NK?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Liquor Dealer

I don't think this qualifies as a "Big Dog" because it's gonna stay on the porch. Other than the threat of nuclear weapons, and at this point no one knows if it is anything other than a threat, N Korea is a threat to S Korea, China and Russia. (Period) They have a large army, ill equipped, ill fed, and they have nothing much else. They have no way of transporting this army to anywhere other than to where they can walk. Even the rag tag vehicles they do have available are in disrepair and antiques. I have a feeling people who do not yet believe George Bush when he says something are standing around with their heads in the sand. He will do what he says he will do and I think you can take that to the bank. When N Korea is thrown the bone they are barking for they will get back on the porch and stay there. N Korea has serious problems - War is the last thing they possibly need - they know it and the rest of the world knows it.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Memalvada

Because Iraq was a MUCH easier target

__________________
"The weak are food for the strong, so die and let me feast!" - Makoto Shishio (RK)

Phaenx

Of course, then again, we tore through them like a hot knife through butter 12 years ago when they were one of the stronger military prescenses in the world as well. It's not that we're afraid of North Korea, anyone who says that will recieve a liberal dose of scoffing.

More likely, it's because we haven't persued diplomacy yet. Remember, we didn't invade Iraq until they invaded Kuwait, and we didn't go back until we had enough of their BS, and diplomacy proved futile. Kim Jong il has thus far only threatened us, I'm surprised pacifier is wondering why we don't go to war with them, though I'm sure he's just trying to prove a point, we don't because there's no reason to yet. In time we'll properly assess the threat they pose, what they want, and how to go about dealing with them. Hopefully not with war, but don't rule it out. All things considered, they have to know we'd crush them, I think it's clear they want something else. Possibly to do with the United States having lots of food, and them needing some.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy