Time to face the music and dance Mark and Headrock

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
OK I stop ranting about the world in general.

Apart from N Korea not liking the US and owning nukes, what reason would you have for attacking them? I ask because I am not fully up to date with the situation.

If you had good reason then fair enough go for it and I hope the UK would back you 100%

But as it stands then I dont think that there is enough reason to wage war.

Sometime in the 90's Clinton engaged in talks with the North Koreans about thier nukes..A proposal was made and we gave them 2 billion dollars a year and food and aid for thier people in return for a halt to thier building of nuclear weapons..By the the Norths own admission last year,as soon as the deal was signed,they were back to producing nukes again...2 billion for nothing..They might as well as sent it to me...

Skip to 2002 and Bush throws them into the Axis of Evil..People ranted that GW has made the North mad at us and now they'll build nukes because we yelled at them..As I said before,they were producing nukes well before any GW speech by thier own admission so that argument doesnt fly...

In 2003 we intercept a ship to Yemen from North Korea carrying missiles..They say they needed money for food for thier people..Glad that 2 billion went to good use...

So now we have a country thats mad because we wont give them anymore money,has said that any sanctions imposed on them will be a declaration of war,and has nukes that can reach US shores..If I can find the link,ill show you billboards of US soldiers in North Korea impalled on bayonets...

So if hes willing to send missiles to Yemen for god knows what just for money,and quite possibly would sell a nuke if he could,should we go in and stop him...Hes the only one threatening war at the moment so im interested in what you think...Should we give in again and give them money in return for nothing or keep having him threaten us and our allies with nukes..

Originally posted by crom-dubh


Are you saying that you can wage war on anyone you want without conclusive proof that they pose a threat? If you do then you must agree with the 9/11 attacks. The scum that did that thought that the US was a threat and decided to attack without any thoughts about consequences

They think were a threat because our soldiers are near thier holy sites offereing protection to the Saudis??

Or because they hit us three times before 9/11 with almost no retalliation except for a few missiles Clinton decided to lob at nothing??

Some threat we were to them

 

[pgaglio]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
So where were Iraq's sophisticated weapons? Where were Afghanistans? In fact since WW2 every nation you have gone to war with has been technoligically backwards.

Rather than sophisticated, perhaps I should have said that nations which show a willingness to use weapons that can cause mass damage and casualties (I was too lazy to type the whole freakin' thing the first time around) against us, should know that they may be subject to attack.

I suppose that when you lead the world in technology (both military and civillian), then virtually every country you fight is going to be technologically backward in comparison. The next time there is a war, should we foresake our technology so that more US soldiers are killed and you feel better?

 

[duffistut]

>I hope so too, but I just know that Israel and the Palestinians are going to **** the bed, and it's going to be nasty. Call it a hunch.

Mark, we agree...

...so there's hope for the Israelis and the Palestinians yet.

Cow, on 1 and 2 I'll call truce, on 3, I'm a Buddhist...there's my answer. Read into it what you will...

 

[crom-dubh]

Cheers for that Rock.

In that case then I suppose there may be no alternative than to go to war.



Rather than sophisticated, perhaps I should have said that nations which show a willingness to use weapons that can cause mass damage and casualties (I was too lazy to type the whole freakin' thing the first time around) against us, should know that they may be subject to attack

Again I ask what country has ever used these weapons on the US before you went to war with them?

 

[pgaglio]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Again I ask what country has ever used these weapons on the US before you went to war with them?

Of course the Afghans harbored Al Qaeda members who directed the 9/11 attacks against us. In the case of Iraq, we are now operating under a new set of rules. Saddam had the weapons and apparently either hid them, exported them or destroyed them prior to our invasion. If you possess weapons and threaten us and/or our allies, you may be attacked.

I'm not suggesting we use military force against every dictator or country that doesn't agree with the US, but if there is a real threat, then we should be able to counter that threat before it ends up on our soil.

The point is to counter/remove the threat before they use the weapons on us.

 

[crom-dubh]

So you have gone from sophisticated weapons to countries that harbour terrorists and countries which infact do not have any weapons that can harm the US. Sorry but I dont dig this attitude that the US can do whatever to whoever they want on the flimsy pretence that they may or may not constitute a threat.

 

[Mark790.06]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
So you have gone from sophisticated weapons to countries that harbour terrorists and countries which infact do not have any weapons that can harm the US.

C'mon now, the question was one of preemption. Afghanistan was not a war of preemption. Al-Qaeda had already attacked us, the Taliban harbored them in Afghanistan, that was a war of retaliation.

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Sorry but I dont dig this attitude that the US can do whatever to whoever they want on the flimsy pretence that they may or may not constitute a threat.

Get out of here, really?

 

[pgaglio]

Sorry you don't dig it Crom. There are lots of things I don't dig that I can't change.

 

[pgaglio]

Originally posted by Mark790.06
C'mon now, the question was one of preemption. Afghanistan was not a war of preemption. Al-Qaeda had already attacked us, the Taliban harbored them in Afghanistan, that was a war of retaliation.

Yes it was. After someone murders 3,000 civillians in a single day, it seems that we had a right to at least a little retaliation.

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by duffistut
Cow, on 1 and 2 I'll call truce, on 3, I'm a Buddhist...there's my answer. Read into it what you will...

Even Quang Chi Kane had to whoop ass at least once a week.