Do Iraq and North Korea have a right for preventive terrorist strikes against USA?

[mika]

Assumptions

1. Iraq is threatening USA
2. USA believe that the Iraqi threat is a threat against US interests and sovereignty
3. USA has a right for "preventive" attacks against Iraq

Now, further assuming, that all nations have a right to sovereignty, you would assume that North Korea and Iraq have right to develop nuclear weapons. But USA is threatening these countries because of their (possible) nuclear weapons. Thus, we have

1. USA is threatening North Korea
2. North Korea believe that the USA threat is a threat against North Korea sovereignty
3. North Korea has a right for "preventive" terrorist attacks against USA

See the similarities of both arguments

I will not start debating unless you can show some intelligent reasoning why USA has a RIGHT for preventive offensive wars while other nations do not.

[Terenzo]

I think many americans start to think like this. There are many books written by americans concerning such issues. I think one of the biggest problems for the american people is that they are aware that many europeans still think that europe is more sophisticated (especially cultural) than the usa. I understand when americans start to ingore even well-minded critisism.

Sorry, it's a bit off-topic, but it needs to be said.

[12clicks]

you wouldn't understand, you're one of those finnish fags.

their war history is a good one

[[Labret]]

Why would they have to be terrorist attacks against the United States. Could they not declare war like we have and attack military targets instead of civilian targets?

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by 12clicks
you wouldn't understand, you're one of those finnish fags.

their war history is a good one

You being the anti-Russian posterboy cannot appreciate the fact that such a small nation was able to defeat the Russians? They have ruined more Russian lives than you have.

[strainer]

What an incredibly dumb question. You left out a little part - that both Iraq and North Korea are run by carpet munching insane dictators who have already killed millions of their own people and attacked their neighbors.

Every 40 or 50 years or so America bails out the world after the Eurpeans fuck up something and this time will be no different.

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by strainer
What an incredibly dumb question. You left out a little part - that both Iraq and North Korea are run by carpet munching insane dictators who have already killed millions of their own people and attacked their neighbors.

This argument is so full of holes I dont even know where to start punching.

Who has N. Korea attacked since the 1950s? Where is this info about N. Korea killing mass amounts of its own citizens?

The United States has never killed or subjegated its citizens?

What about all the other dictators around the world that attack others and crush any and all opposition. Why arent we helping them see the light of US style democracy?

China has nukes and kills its own citizens routinely. Why not attack them?

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by 12clicks
you wouldn't understand, you're one of those finnish fags.

Why are your responses always off-topic and made up of simplistic sentences like the one you just posted?
Why not participate in the discussion by responding to Mika's message and not attacking him without any reason whatsoever?

I am not actually expecting a substantiated response from you at this point, but I tried.

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by strainer
What an incredibly dumb question. You left out a little part - that both Iraq and North Korea are run by carpet munching insane dictators who have already killed millions of their own people and attacked their neighbors.

There are several countries that do NOT have a problem with North-Korea and Iraq, they think the USA is an enemy and potential threat to their security. Perspective is of essence here, and you are incapable or unwilling of viewing the other side's position.

To one a hero, to the other a terrorist.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by ControlThy


Why are your responses always off-topic and made up of simplistic sentences like the one you just posted?
Why not participate in the discussion by responding to Mika's message and not attacking him without any reason whatsoever?

I am not actually expecting a substantiated response from you at this point, but I tried.

Because Mika and I have been here longer than 5 months (unlike yourself). we know where each other stand on the topic and I don't waste time debating euro-pansies about war.
you clowns believe that you were 5 minutes from throwing off hitler without the US's help.
With that base, no other of your arguments about war need to be taken seriously.

(if that's too simplistic for you, I could puff it up for you)

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by mika
See the similarities of both arguments

Yes, I see the similaraties between the two - however logic seems absent when it comes to this issue. Logic would dictate, as you just showed us, that North-Korea has a right to a preemptive strike just like the USA, however this right has been taken away from them by the USA. Although illogical, it is factual.

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by 12clicks

Because Mika and I have been here longer than 5 months (unlike yourself). we know where each other stand on the topic and I don't waste time debating euro-pansies about war.

You may know that it is possible to READ a board without actually posting. So the date you see on the left that shows when I signed up to this board is irrelevant. Why even post in this thread when you think its a waste of your time?

you clowns believe that you were 5 minutes from throwing off hitler without the US's help.
With that base, no other of your arguments about war need to be taken seriously.

I do not see the relevance of the second worldwar to this particular discussion.

(if that's too simplistic for you, I could puff it up for you)

No, it was fine - thank you, I appreciate it.

[mika]

Originally posted by ControlThy


Yes, I see the similaraties between the two - however logic seems absent when it comes to this issue. Logic would dictate, as you just showed us, that North-Korea has a right to a preemptive strike just like the USA, however this right has been taken away from them by the USA. Although illogical, it is factual.

Sounds worth a thought at first. But I don't think a right is something that can be taken away from you.

If spacedog has a right to not get anally raped, and he FACTUALLY gets anally raped, do you think that the fact that he was raped removed his right to not get anally raped?

[12clicks]

Originally posted by ControlThy


You may know that it is possible to READ a board without actually posting. So the date you see on the left that shows when I signed up to this board is irrelevant.

sure, you read this board for months without posting. I believe you, really.

Originally posted by ControlThy

Why even post in this thread when you think its a waste of your time?

because as usual, I do as I please, not what some euro-newbie thinks I should do

Originally posted by ControlThy

I do not see the relevance of the second worldwar to this particular discussion.

of course you don't. Thats what keeps you from understanding the topic.

[mika]

12clicks your are obsessed with Europeans, the subject of this thread doesn't involve Europeans at all

[strainer]

Originally posted by [Labret]


This argument is so full of holes I dont even know where to start punching.

Who has N. Korea attacked since the 1950s? Where is this info about N. Korea killing mass amounts of its own citizens?

The United States has never killed or subjegated its citizens?

What about all the other dictators around the world that attack others and crush any and all opposition. Why arent we helping them see the light of US style democracy?

China has nukes and kills its own citizens routinely. Why not attack them?

These arguments all miss the point. We do not treat every nation the same, because they are all different. China, and formerly the U.S.S.R, of course killed more millions than others. But we adopted the path we did (50 years of cold war at U.S. taxpayers expense) because it was the most logical course of action. Obviously we could not attack a country with thousands of nukes????

You might think North Korea has been peaceful for 50 years, but then again your country doesn't have 37,000 soldiers there - the minimum number required to keep Pork Chop from invading again. Don't think for a second that if it wasn't for the U.S. - N. Korea would have took over the south years ago, grabbed their wealth and used it to purchase a couple thousand nukes.

This argument that just because we are going to clean up Iraq, we have to do it everywhere, is illogical. If you can name another country that has:

1. Used weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens and neigbors.

2. Will nuke the U.S. 20 minutes after it gets a prototype.

3. Whose presdent personally kills oponents by strangling them.

4. Who means to control the worlds oil supply.

Then we will probably attack them too. Sadaam should be attacked based on his bad breath alone. Everything else is just an extra provocation.

PS: You actually are not aware that millions are starving in North Korea because of their insane leader?

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by mika


Sounds worth a thought at first. But I don't think a right is something that can be taken away from you.

If spacedog has a right to not get anally raped, and he FACTUALLY gets anally raped, do you think that the fact that he was raped removed his right to not get anally raped?

You are twisting my words or misunderstanding them. Seems like you are playing word games like you tried with Quiet in another thread
;-)

If I have a right to say what I want (freedom of speech), yet I am arrested and thrown in prison for saying what I believe in, makes it factual that I am in prison and not allowed to speak my mind although I have a right to do so.

[ControlThy]

Strainer,

Most of those points apply to another country you are very familair with, you figure out which one ;-)

[ControlThy]

Mika,

Have you heard of "selective rights"?
Rights that apply to one and not to another.

[mika]

Originally posted by ControlThy


You are twisting my words or misunderstanding them. Seems like you are playing word games like you tried with Quiet in another thread
;-)

Maybe, maybe not.

You have to remember that "right" is not materia. Even if it does not exist in space, it can still exist. "right to something" is not something that can be taken away by physical force

You are confusing the question whether "North Korea has right to sovereignty", to the question "whether it is possible for North Korea to exercise its right"

[Sunshine McGillicutty]

Originally posted by [Labret]

China has nukes and kills its own citizens routinely. Why not attack them?

Bingo. For some strange reason, hardly anyone seems to understand the consistency problem with attacking Iraq. Saddam is a bad guy, but there are lots of bad guys in positions of power around the world, China included. Why aren't we attacking them?

It couldn't possibly be the principle of the thing, as Bush claims it is, otherwise we'd be duty bound to invade China, most of the middle east and a healthy portion of Africa as well.

[Zebra]

Originally posted by [Labret]

Who has N. Korea attacked since the 1950s? Where is this info about N. Korea killing mass amounts of its own citizens?

Labret - Not every dictator has to kill people with bullets. N. Korea has spent a huge percentage of their money on war. So much spent on war that not enough has been spent on agriculture to keep their own people from starving to death. Why do you think that N. Korea's #1 import request from the US is grain? http://www.fao.org/NEWS/GLOBAL/GW9714-e.htm
North Koreans finally have nukes but their people have to resort to eating grass, weeds, and the bark from trees to survive. KIM Chong-il must be pretty fucking proud of himself.

Wake up and smell the tree bark dude...

[ControlThy]

Originally posted by mika


Maybe, maybe not.

You have to remember that "right" is not materia. Even if it does not exist in space, it can still exist. "right to something" is not something that can be taken away by physical force

You are confusing the question whether "North Korea has right to sovereignty", to the question "whether it is possible for North Korea to exercise its right"

Nope.

I think you either:

A) Drank too much last night,
B) Want to confuse people.
C) A mix of the above.

But I will answer your question(s):

You are confusing the question whether "North Korea has right to sovereignty", to the question "whether it is possible for North Korea to exercise its right"

North Korea has a right, as any nation, to sovereignty, if the international community has granted and agreed to this sovereignty.

North Korea could at any time excercise its right to use military force to defend its country like any other nation.

[Sunshine McGillicutty]

Originally posted by mika
I will not start debating unless you can show some intelligent reasoning why USA has a RIGHT for preventive offensive wars while other nations do not.

You might find this: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...7-120505-7335r to be interesting reading. Its slant is a bit obvious, but the "Nuclear Bee Sting" is what smaller nations are going to resort to in order to deter and counter the US.

[DjSap]

hopefully this war will jumpstart the american economy and therefore my sales...go ahead bush...

[kicks]

I must be losing my mind to post to this but oh what the hell.

North Korea is not just a peaceful little country that wishes to grow and be part of a world community. They are a communist country that is very small yet feels the need to have an army of about 1.5 million. Hell of a large army to be a peace loving country with no thoughts of expanding. They of course have rights like other countries. I really think more people need to research these subjects online. I say this not because I think you all couldn't read your history books but because history books are not always accurate or they do not tell the whole story. There is for sure history between the USA and North Korea more recent than 50 years ago.

Iraq is a complete different issue at this time. Sadam has openly said he is at war with the USA and he has been for years now. We did not take him out when he invaded Kuwait and yet almost daily he attacks our aircraft, oh and the brits as well. He has a history of gasing a hundred thousand of his people (another religeon). He openly makes threats on a regular basis. So why would we not end his rule and remove the threat?

The issue of terrorist is one that is not new it has been around for thousands of years. Some countries live with it on a daily basis and have for years. WTC for sure brought it home for us and now we want to make sure best we can it will never happen again. But not just here, what about Kuwait? Isreal? or countless other places Sadam could attack? Oh yes there are a lot of other places that terrorist are being active on a daily basis.

Honestly I am one American that is tired of us pulling everyones ass out of the fire. If I had my way we would not have anything to do with any country other than our own.... might sound a bit nut right? Sure it does, no country can do that is this day in time, we are almost all connected like it or not. But still I am tired of knowing what this country has gave up for others to live with freedom and respect only to be run down at every chance by some that on a good day may have enough brains to fill a nats ass. Do you think we had family die in Eroupe just so you all would have the right to run us down? Without us you would not have any rights today.

I do not like the USA acting as world cops, I think it sucks but as normal a big chunk of the world has no hair on their ass and can do nothing but piss and moan and if we wait till they are being killed then it will be our fault for not acting sooner. This is a no win for the USA and it always will be a no win thing because there will always be someone that has a complaint.

Let see in response to remark about why we dont attack this one and that one, well again if we need to then maybe we will the fact is we can apply pressure to others in other ways and we will do that. Attack China now that would be a smart thing to do,,,, SHEEESh you people act like we wake up in the morning and say "good morning USA who will we attack today?" Maybe Finland, thats a rowdy bunch over there.

I guess it just makes me sick to know how many of this country have died so some of the people that bad mouth us the most have the right to bad mouth us at all.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by mika
12clicks your are obsessed with Europeans, the subject of this thread doesn't involve Europeans at all

you're european, you have a dopey understanding of the world, so do most other europeans.

the proof of this is the lack of support we recieve from euro-nations over the iraqs of the world.

its all about europe.

[Zebra]

A lot of people wish that the USA would mind their own business and let other countries handle their own business. There are lots of pros and cons but I look at it like this:

Say you buy a lot in a normal middle-class neighborhood and build a nice upper-class house with a nice yard. Everyone looks at your house and ooohs and aaahs and wishes they had the same thing.
Years pass with only a few disruptions. The dog next door barking, the neighbor who mows his lawn at 8am saturday morning, the kid down the street who drives by with the stereo blasting.
After years of settling in you decide that you love your home and vow never to move.
Some years later the neighborhood starts to decline. The houses around you are not taken care of. Hoodlums and thugs move into the area. Some of the houses become crack houses and whorehouses. Some of the undesirables in the hood creep over your fence onto your nicely manicured lawn in the middle of the night and steal some of the plastic pinks flamingoes around your fountain. You wonder if next time they might steal your expensive grill or *gasp* actually break into your house and threaten the safety of your family.
You sit on the porch one morning, shotgun across your lap, and survey what has become of the one nice neighborhood you moved into all those years ago. You realize how you must look to all of those people outside your 12 foot tall electric security fence topped with barbed wire. A shining example of luxury and decadence in the midst of a slum. No wonder they all want what you have. They are poor and you are not. You have nice stuff and they do not. You know they will be coming for you soon.
You go inside and look in the phonebook for a company that sells automatic chain guns with remote targeting systems.. they will look good on top of your fence.
This is your house and you are not going to let anyone violate it's sanctity and threaten the safety that you have created for your family.

America is kind of like that house. If we want to maintain what we have we have to protect it or we might as well open the doors and let anyone from the hood come in and take what they want. Do or Die..
and lately the thugs in the hood have been casing the joint. They may not want the crystal chandelier hanging in the foyer, but they dont want us to have it either, especially when they are having to scrape to buy bread, cigs, and those tasty 40s. Seeing us with nice stuff just reminds them of how much they DONT have. It makes them mad. Makes them want to take the nice stuff away from us. Makes them want to burn our house down. That's why we have to protect ourselves. If that means helping to police the neighborhood then so be it. If we have the funds to pay for the manpower and weapons needed to make the place safe then that is our right. We also can create jobs and give back to the hood in the hope that it will help the community prosper and maybe some of the thugs will forget about our house when they can afford one of their own. Of course there will always be some people who would just rather steal someone elses house than work for their own. Those are the ones we need to worry about.

Does that make any sense? Yes? No? Maybe? Well, welcome to Planet Earth lol

[Frank W]

Your question actually illustrates the problem with GW Bush's "First Strike" policy. It sets a bad precedent for other nations. Really, there are nuclear armed nations with serious beefs with each other [see India v. Pakistan] and if the US pioneers this First Strike policy it would be hypocritical for it to prevent other sovereign nations from doing the same.

Originally posted by mika
Assumptions

1. Iraq is threatening USA
2. USA believe that the Iraqi threat is a threat against US interests and sovereignty
3. USA has a right for "preventive" attacks against Iraq

Now, further assuming, that all nations have a right to sovereignty, you would assume that North Korea and Iraq have right to develop nuclear weapons. But USA is threatening these countries because of their (possible) nuclear weapons. Thus, we have

1. USA is threatening North Korea
2. North Korea believe that the USA threat is a threat against North Korea sovereignty
3. North Korea has a right for "preventive" terrorist attacks against USA

See the similarities of both arguments

I will not start debating unless you can show some intelligent reasoning why USA has a RIGHT for preventive offensive wars while other nations do not.

[ADL Colin]

Mika,

Yes, sure. Why not?

I think it would be a bad strategy though. Consider that at present Iraq has a lot of world support for further attempts to negotiate. If he were to get caught in "preventive terrorist strikes" world opinion would switch the other way very quickly. The USA could use such as pretext for an all out invasion and thre would not be many opposed to such at that point.

[.:Frog:.]

Originally posted by kicks
you people act like we wake up in the morning and say "good morning USA who will we attack today?"

Didn't the US attack Cuba, N.Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Have a cold war with Russia, and threaten China, since WW2 ended?
Now there is a chance of attacking Iraq again, and maybe N.Korea.

I'm sure you can list a million valid reasons why each conflict was important, but the fact remains, the US has done shitloads of fightings since WW2 ended.

To answer your question, I think people do assume the US likes war, and this is supported by the large number of conflicts you've had in recent history.

[Zebra]

We had the bomb first. Got a problem with that?
We'll just nuke you till you shut the fuck up and glow in the dark.
Did we patent the bomb? We are just protecting what is rightfully ours. Nevermind that it was created mostly by exiled German Jews who created it for use against the jerk who took over their country. The important fact is that they created it on US soil with US materials. Possesion is 9/10's of the law!

[mika]

Originally posted by Zebra

This is your house and you are not going to let anyone violate it's sanctity and threaten the safety that you have created for your family.

Sounds nice at first thought, BUT, would it be ok to grab your shotgun and make some "preventive" or "preemptive" attacks at OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSES?

[Rochard]

The US doens't want to make any "preventive" strikes.

North Korea entered a treaty with the US saying "NO NUKES". It was pretty plain and simple. While most of North Korea is starving, the US supplied it with billions of dollars of nuclear power plants so the country doesn't fucking freeze to death during the winter. In return the violated this treaty and now may have a nuclear bomb. This in itself is grounds for war.

Read between the lines here - The US gave North Korea billions of dollars. The US wants to be friends with North Korea and help them, not kill them.

Iraq? There isn't any discussion to be had with Iraq. Here is a country that invades it's neighbor and rapes them; It's people, it's land, it's riches. The US didn't have a problem with Iraq; In fact, the US support Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The problem was when it invaded one of our allies. Then it launched missiles at Israel for no reason what so ever. The US didn't want to replace it's leader; It wanted Iraq out of Kuwait. Now, ten years later, Iraq refuses to obey the terms of surrender and fires on our planes enforcing the terms of the surrender. This too is grounds for war.

Remember the Iraqi retreat? I'll never forgot the convoy of Mercedes Benz filled with TVs and stereos.......

China has little to do with this thread. If Chinia was to invade Japan then it would be a different story. For the most part China has done nothing but enjoy the silence, and has made great improvements all around the board with human rights issues, and so forth.

Any country that supports terrorism should be taken out, including some of our own allies.

[kicks]

Originally posted by .:Frog:.

Didn't the US attack Cuba, N.Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Have a cold war with Russia, and threaten China, since WW2 ended?
Now there is a chance of attacking Iraq again, and maybe N.Korea.

I'm sure you can list a million valid reasons why each conflict was important, but the fact remains, the US has done shitloads of fightings since WW2 ended.

To answer your question, I think people do assume the US likes war, and this is supported by the large number of conflicts you've had in recent history.

First the USA did not attack without reason, N.Korea at the request of the South Koreans, Same with north and south Vietnam. Irag, recent history or maybe you were in a box? Cold war with Russia, yep we sure have been and that cold war has kept Eroupe free. Threatend China, well no we wont bow down and kiss their ass. Funny how that can be taken as a threat.
But hey I see you live in a swamp and I can understand that you being able to dig a little deeper into the mud you dont have to worry about anything outside your mud hole.

Fact the US has done a shitload of fighting since WW2..... We have fought to protect our freedom and maybe even yours. I am sure you can bad mouth this coutry all you want and thats cool, see we have fought so you have that right
Maybe you should look at how many years Sadam has been fighting nieghbors with no real reason other than power? Or how about those Russians up until the end of the so called cold war they did a hell of a lot of fighting the world over. China would rather abuse their own if at all possible. North Korea is not wanting the nukes to protect themself.... think about it, who would drop a nuke with no reason at all on them? who are they protecting themself from? We have the weapons to remove the country so why would they need a nuke? would that defend them from us? I think not.

And last, I did not ask a real question, it was a statement.

[theking]

Originally posted by mika
Assumptions

1. Iraq is threatening USA
2. USA believe that the Iraqi threat is a threat against US interests and sovereignty
3. USA has a right for "preventive" attacks against Iraq

Irag is not threatening the USA, but is and has been taking overt actions against the USA.

#1 Iraq was defeated in battle and to obtain a cease fire agreed to terms. Terms which they have been in violation of virtually since they agreed to the terms in 1991.

#2 Iraq has been firing upon US and British military forces, ever since the "no fly zone" was established.

#3 Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President.

#4 Iraq has repeatedly called for Americans to be killed where ever they are found through out the world.

Any one of the reasons outlined above is a legitimate reason to resume military action against Iraq.

[QUOTE][B]

Now, further assuming, that all nations have a right to sovereignty, you would assume that North Korea and Iraq have right to develop nuclear weapons. But USA is threatening these countries because of their (possible) nuclear weapons. Thus, we have

1. USA is threatening North Korea
2. North Korea believe that the USA threat is a threat against North Korea sovereignty
3. North Korea has a right for "preventive" terrorist attacks against USA

#1 The war is not over in Korea. There was an agreement to a cease fire (a truce).

#2 North Korea has repeatedly violated the terms of the truce over the past 49 years. There have been military incursions by the North into the South. There have been military skirmishes fought, with loss of life on both sides (including the loss of American lives), multiple times,

#3 North Korea has an oppressive dicatator, that many of the worlds leaders believe to be certifiably insane.

#4 North Korea violated a treaty that it made with the USA as regards the persuit of Nuclear Weapons. Because of the treaty the USA provided them with aid.

Any one of the reasons outlined above is a legitimate reason to contain North Korea and its military capabilities.
You speak of "rights" which is an abstract term and is open to subjective definition. The fact is, this is not a perfect world, and idealism is not alive and well, and I suspect that it never will be. Any country has the "right" to act as it chooses to. Any country has the "right" to respond to another countries actions as it chooses to. In the real world it pretty much boils down to "might makes right". Countries play by the "golden rule", the "man with the gold makes the rule". Grow up, and learn to accept the world as it is, not as you would prefer it to be. I will repeat idealism is not alive and well.

[.:Frog:.]

kicks - I said the US had valid reasons for being in those conflicts. Did you miss that? Learn to read. All my post was saying is that the US has been pretty busy the last 50 years with military operations.

And I do call the last 50 years recent history when you consider humans have been around for awhile. I have family members who were alive from WW2 to now, so this stuff isn't too outdated.

[FlyingIguana]

why should iraq and north korea have a right to make nuclear weapons? the last thing this world needs is more wacko's with shit like this. bad enough you have a texan running the show in washington.

[ADL Colin]

Maybe we should ask a different question. If you were playing a game and were well ahead but then suddenly someone showed up that could threaten your position, would you attack them before they can challenge you or allow them to possibly attack you and weaken your game?

[.:Frog:.]

Originally posted by FlyingIguana
why should iraq and north korea have a right to make nuclear weapons? the last thing this world needs is more wacko's with shit like this. bad enough you have a texan running the show in washington.

N.Korea does not want to attack America, its the last thing in the world they want.
They fear America will attack them, or try and replace their leader. The nuke is their insurance America does not attack.
Believe me N.Korea will defend against the US, but not strike first.

Just think about, if America has no plans to attack do you really think N.Korea will just launch a strike for the heck of it?

[theking]

Originally posted by .:Frog:.


N.Korea does not want to attack America, its the last thing in the world they want.
They fear America will attack them, or try and replace their leader. The nuke is their insurance America does not attack.
Believe me N.Korea will defend against the US, but not strike first.

Just think about, if America has no plans to attack do you really think N.Korea will just launch a strike for the heck of it?

#1 The war is not over in Korea. There was an agreement to a cease fire (a truce).

#2 North Korea has repeatedly violated the terms of the truce over the past 49 years. There have been military incursions by the North into the South. There have been military skirmishes fought, with loss of life on both sides (including the loss of American lives), multiple times,

#3 North Korea has an oppressive dicatator, that many of the worlds leaders believe to be certifiably insane.

#4 North Korea violated a treaty that it made with the USA as regards the persuit of Nuclear Weapons. Because of the treaty the USA provided them with aid.

The USA is not concerned about North Korea striking the USA (they do not have that capability), but it does have concerns about it striking South Korea, with whom we are allied, and also we have some concern about it striking Japan, as Korea and Japan (with whom we are allied) are historical enemies. I will repeat that many world leaders believe that the leader of North Korea is certifiably insane.

[tree]

mongoloids shouldnt own nukes

if you'r not smart enough to keep your own people from starving you dont need nukes! thats like giving apes in the zoo pistols.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by mika
12clicks your are obsessed with Europeans, the subject of this thread doesn't involve Europeans at all

Mika,
All due respect man. But you are the one obsessed. Most of your posts revolve around the USA, and what they are doing.

You my friend are the one obsessed!!

[tree]

everyone is obcessed with what the u.s. is doing...thats why everyones a hater.

you think: how can everyone be so fat and stupid and they still run the world...HOW ?

we got you right where we want you

[[Labret]]

Originally posted by Zebra


Labret - Not every dictator has to kill people with bullets. N. Korea has spent a huge percentage of their money on war.

You are talking to an American here. We spend more on funding other peoples wars and fueling our war machine than any other nation in the world.

And before you go knocking other nations priorities, our economy is fucked, our educational system is a joke, social security wont be there when you get old, and the deficit is absurd. Just to name a few. Tet we gots good bombs and can kick some Arab ass.

Yeah, priorities.

[ChrisH]

Originally posted by ControlThy


There are several countries that do NOT have a problem with North-Korea and Iraq, they think the USA is an enemy and potential threat to their security.

Tell that to Japan, S Korea, and Kuait.

[Terenzo]

btw. what are your signup ratios doing? i guess they suck so much that most of you are moving towards politics.

[theking]

Originally posted by [Labret]

And before you go knocking other nations priorities, our economy is fucked, our educational system is a joke, social security wont be there when you get old, and the deficit is absurd. Just to name a few. Tet we gots good bombs and can kick some Arab ass.

Yeah, priorities.

Its sure a good thing that we have good bombs and are willing to kick ass, or we would not be in such good shape.

[Manga1]

It's not about right, it's about might.

[Bad B0y]

The biggest problem for Iraq is that they are sitting on a shitload of oil and N.Korea isn't(and that is why they are not beign targeted). Screw the idea of Iraq beign a threat for the US, they'll lose before the war even started should they decide to attack.

It's comes down to oil. Iraq has it, the US wants it.