N. Korea the same as Iraq?

Post #58,098 by Mike 10/21/02 6:34:00 PM Reply	N. Korea the same as Iraq? The same people who want to keep dancing on the pinhead of "its all about the oil" have no explanation for why it is that anybody gives a damn about N. Korea. For them the oil neatly explains the heightened aggression towards Iraq but they are unable to account for how the lack of oil does not seem to equate to a lack of interest in N. Korea. Those who argue that the Bush administration would be equally aggressive with N. Korea if they are to be taken seriously seem to conveniently disregard the fact that showing ANY concern at all about N. Korea would seem to run in the face of the its-all-about-oil argument. And the they ARE showing concern. Aren't they? Just because we have not yet established no-fly zones or bombed them...is somehow clear evidence of the oil lust which is fueling the war on terrorism. These people also seem to want to avoid doing any research.......because if they did they would realise that we have been very close to war with N. Korea over their nuclear arms. Concerns about N. Korea have been raised right up to and since 9/11. (links provided upon request). This whole "Bush won't bother with them because they don't have oil" is quite simply NOT BORNE OUT BY THE FACTS. They have had our attention for a long time. Contrary to the claims that we are going to be treating N. Korea with kid gloves (because they don't have oil), I believe there will be decisive action against them. Let's not get too surprised that the tacticians will not recommend attempting to deal with Iraq and North Korea simultaneously. By "decisive" I mean intense economic and military pressures initially.....then military intervention (ie. war) if that fails. N. Korea will be a very expensive proposition both in terms of lives and money. But it is something the Bush administration won't shrink from. Finally, there is one VERY good reason for not wanting to deal with N. Korea immediately. Let them witness how we behave towards Iraq and realize how determined we are to do something about the threat of WMD. With our resolve in no doubt they are more likely to come to the negotiating table. This is (in part) why we must not waver against Iraq. -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,104 by Brandioch 10/21/02 7:31:21 PM Reply	What have you been reading? The same people who want to keep dancing on the pinhead of "its all about the oil" have no explanation for why it is that anybody gives a damn about N. Korea. If by "gives a damn", you mean "is planning an invasion", then you are WRONG. We are NOT going to invade N.K. For them the oil neatly explains the heightened aggression towards Iraq but they are unable to account for how the lack of oil does not seem to equate to a lack of interest in N. Korea. Okay, let me spell it out for you. Oil == invasion no oil == no invasion N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. Or have you been reading something DIFFERENT? Those who argue that the Bush administration would be equally aggressive with N. Korea if they are to be taken seriously seem to conveniently disregard the fact that showing ANY concern at all about N. Korea would seem to run in the face of the its-all-about-oil argument. So, in YOUR world, if someone says that the INVASION is about the OIL, and there isn't any OIL, then there will not be ANY COVERAGE? Well, here on planet Earth, the OIL is the reason for the INVASION. Whether any other country gets any press time or not is immaterial. If N.K. was sitting on an OIL field like Iraq's, then we'd be planning an invasion. And the they ARE showing concern. Aren't they? They are NOT planning an INVASION. And you continue on with that same thread. Amazing. After all this time and all these posts, someone actually managed to misunderstand the OIL == INVASION concept.
Post #58,115 by Mike 10/21/02 7:53:06 PM Reply	But.... they WERE planning an invasion. In 1994. Weren't they? And you're not reading. Are you? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,185 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:40:08 AM Reply	"They"? In 1994? Newsflash! Bush was "elected" in 2000. That's SIX YEARS after 1994. So there's no way "they" could have been planning an invasion of N.K. in 1994. Oh, you mean a DIFFERENT "they" in 1994. oooooookaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy. So, when I say that the current regime is planning an invasion of Iraq just because of the oil. You have trouble with the definition of "current".
Post #58,211 by Simon_Jester 10/22/02 8:17:42 AM Reply	Worse yet... back in 1994, "they" were complaining about Clinton's police-the-world policies. (Of course, if we do that now, we're anti-american)
Post #58,212 by bepatient 10/22/02 8:31:06 AM Reply	ROFLMAO You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #58,359 by marlowe 10/22/02 12:29:22 PM Reply	Facts from the future! Prognostications from planet Brandioch. The guy's got chutzpah, of a sort. I'm not arrogant enough to predict the future on this. (Unless you define "arrogant" as daring to disagree with the Left, in which case I'm "arrogant" and proud of it.) On second thought, I will make a prediction. I predict that whatever Dubya does about North Korea, Brandioch will put a bad spin on it, facts and logic be damned. If we don't invade, never mind the circumstances, it'll be "See! It's all about oil!" If we do invade, it'll be "unwarranted aggression" or some such nonsense, and by the way, he'll pretend he never predicted otherwise. DUBYA WAS RIGHT about North Korea. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html] The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave. "The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
Post #58,378 by Mike 10/22/02 12:51:40 PM Reply	My prediction >>N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. He will challenge your definition of "we", "them" and what it means to have oil. :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,952 by jb4 10/23/02 6:20:21 PM 10/23/02 6:21:14 PM Reply	HUH?!? He will challenge your definition of "we", "them" and what it means to have oil. What'n'dahell is that supposed to mean? What it means "to have oil" is, rather simply: To have oil reserves on or under your soverign territory. Are you (or Duh-beyew) going to redefine the Engligh language? Good luck! I have a prediction: Nothing but hand wringing, saber rattling, and chest puffing will come of the "revelation" about NK. But we will install a puppet government in Iraq, and lo and behold, suddenly there will be oil in abundance, for the next 10 years. (But the price will NOT go down markedly.) Next? jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...) Edited by jb4 Oct. 23, 2002, 06:21:14 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,380 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:53:14 PM Reply	As I've said before, the only "proof" is prediction. You can hold whatever "opinion" you want to. Real proof only exists in math. The only "proof" in the real world is being able to predict the action that will be taken (or predict which actions will NOT be taken). This annoys you because my predictions have, consistently, been proven correct. Whereas all you have are your attempts to re-write your posts to show that you supported MY position from the beginning. I predict that whatever Dubya does about North Korea, Brandioch will put a bad spin on it, facts and logic be damned. Really? Have you seen me disagree with his actions regarding N.K. yet? Ah, your mind fails to grasp the reality. I haven't faulted Bush's policy on N.K. yet. But I have used his policy regarding N.K. to show that his policy regarding Iraq is based on lies. Hmmm, seems that your predicition has already been invalidated.
Post #58,374 by Mike 10/22/02 12:46:42 PM Reply	Question >>N.K. has no oil, therefore, we will not invade them. When you say "we" do you mean.... 1) America 2) The current administration 3) Some other collective Yes the question is obtuse. But you earned this is another post. ;-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,386 by Brandioch 10/22/02 1:03:10 PM Reply	Pay attention, folks. When you say "we" do you mean.... 1) America 2) The current administration 3) Some other collective That's right, folks. Mike is incapable of following a discussion. #1. I say we are going to invade Iraq because of the OIL! #2. I say we won't invade N.K. because they don't have OIL! #3. So, now I have to define who the "we" are? "America"? You mean like the land mass between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? The one where Canada is? Our rocks and soil will not stand for foreign aggression! Or did you mean the USofA? The nation that occupies part of the North American continent? "The current administration"? Well, let's see. They WOULD be the ones calling for an invasion of Iraq. They WOULD be the ones fabricating "evidence" against Iraq. They WOULD be the ones that I've specifically identified in the past. They WOULD be the ones that said that if the UN would NOT authorize it, then we'd do it unilaterally. They WOULD be the ones that just signed the "resolution" against Iraq which authorizes the president to take whatever action, including war, against Iraq. Hmmm, maybe. "Some other collective" An unnamed collective? Whom did you have in mind? Is it POSSIBLE that I haven't been clear enough for certain individuals? Now, the NEXT question is, "Is it my fault for not communicating clearly enough or is it the individual's fault for not being able to understand?"
Post #58,541 by Mike 10/22/02 6:39:41 PM Reply	WDYHASM? (new thread) Created as a new thread titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=58540\|WDYHASM?] I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,570 by deSitter 10/22/02 7:32:14 PM Reply	Re: WDYHASM? (new thread) What is this acronym? (grumble so what if I'm n00b) -drl
Post #58,582 by Mike 10/22/02 8:04:45 PM Reply	Brandi? This is am acronym which Brandioch is very fond of using. It stands for Why Do You Hate America So Much ? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,607 by deSitter 10/22/02 9:44:06 PM Reply	Re: Brandi? Oh, I thought maybe "Why Do You Have A Stupid Mind?" Or maybe "Visual Assembler" or something like that. -drl
Post #58,621 by Mike 10/22/02 10:01:51 PM Reply	:-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,629 by boxley 10/22/02 10:32:47 PM Reply	why do you hate america so much, thankyou thankyou will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,674 by Ashton 10/23/02 12:56:55 AM Reply	It's from a Tom Tomorrow cartoon.
Post #58,676 by boxley 10/23/02 1:01:48 AM Reply	BS I created he WDYHASM proves seaches are fscked It was a request to brandi so he could fit it into a subjrct thanx, billl will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,682 by Ashton 10/23/02 2:26:56 AM Reply	The phrase! __not the &^$*#$^ abbreviation_______23Skidoo
Post #58,758 by deSitter 10/23/02 9:53:48 AM Reply	23 Skidoo 23 is telegrapher's shorthand for "go away!" - thus the phrase means "let's blow this Kool-Aid stand!". Another theory has it that young men would gather near the Flatiron Bldg. in Manhattan, on 23rd St., and howl "23 Skidoo!" when a cutie would pass by and have her skirt elevated by a passing subway train. -drl
Post #58,938 by Ashton 10/23/02 5:03:16 PM Reply	[cackle]____Oh You Kid!
Post #58,107 by boxley 10/21/02 7:36:04 PM Reply	North Korea is entirely different from Iraq We are in an active state of war in a ceasefire and have been since 1955. If the NK come boiling accross the DMZ we have 38k men in uniform actively at risk on and behind the positions held in bunkers and bases since 1955. The sabre rattling is to keep the damn line quiet as we cannot fight on 2 fronts and NK knows that. This was a big concern in 1991 and is one now. Kim Jr is a psycho slug like his old man but his threat is only to unite the peninsula. They have not exported their revolution actively to other countries like cuba has. Saddam is a known threat to regional stability and in this time and age he is no longer an ally. Removing him without continuing to allow the minority Sunni population to autocratically rule the 60+ percent Shiites will scare the shit out of the saudis as they would present an immediate Iranian style threat to the kingdom as the Shiites beleive they should be in charge of Mecca and Medina, not the wahibis. We obviously cannot promote one man one vote without the Saudis going apeshit so it remains what kind of autocratic government we impose or break up the country into autonomous regions which would entirely piss of the Turkish Government. Talk has been made of installing one of the hashemite Royal Cousins from Jordan as a king and rule that way. We live in interesting times. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,134 by deSitter 10/21/02 8:18:07 PM Reply	Yeah, the service is terrible -drl
Post #58,146 by boxley 10/21/02 8:53:32 PM Reply	wazza matter, waiter cook the wrong dog? will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,190 by dmarker 10/22/02 1:19:06 AM Reply	Re: Hey Box !! - don't knock it till yer tried it <grin> woof! Question, is that the (choose) a) sound of a Korean BBQ when too much kero is poured on to start it b) the sound of dinner before being prepared Cheers Doug
Post #58,214 by boxley 10/22/02 8:42:41 AM Reply	dog is fine sweet but greasy will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,269 by inthane-chan 10/22/02 10:55:28 AM Reply	Wouldn't mind trying it... ...but I draw the line at cat. Dogs, IMO, are transparent slavering yes-men who use this as a way to be a parasite on the human race. Cats have a lot in common with the above statement, but a) they ain't yes-men, and b) they're very honest about the relationship. End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #58,274 by boxley 10/22/02 10:59:05 AM Reply	never tried cat but mountain men declared puma best will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #58,286 by inthane-chan 10/22/02 11:11:53 AM Reply	Correction to my previous post. Actually, I'd never eat housecat. The larger ones I wouldn't feel much emotional guilt about eating, especially if it tried to take me first. End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #58,301 by marlowe 10/22/02 11:28:24 AM Reply	The food is terrible, and such small portions! I know it's insensitive and all, but I just couldn't resist a starving North Korean joke. DUBYA WAS RIGHT about North Korea. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html] The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave. "The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
Post #58,304 by deSitter 10/22/02 11:30:59 AM Reply	Attribution req'd - Groucho Marx -drl
Post #58,112 by dmarker 10/21/02 7:48:47 PM Reply	Re: N. Korea the same as Iraq? - getting it wrong Mike, We know that US will do something about N K - no one is saying that won't happen. BUT, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has anywhere near the capability N.K. claims to have so to most of us it is blatantly clear that N.K. & Pakistan are countries that harbour the greatest threats to peace (hasn't it reached your conciousness where OBL is at the moment ???). So OBL starts WWIII & hides in Paki/Afghan border with substantial help from Pakis & US appears to blame Saddam & without presenting any credible evidence other than trumping up past indiscretions that US help Iraq create & helped cover them up (gassing). Someone needs to teach you the meaning of blatant hipoccracy, distrotions, lies & distractions because this is what is being used to justify attack on Iraq. If you are intelligent you will also have to be prepared to admit that if tomorrow Saddam Hussien stepped down and left Iraq, Bush would again change his story (as he did over inspectors) & claim that SDaddam stepping down was not enough ? - are you willing to state point blank that Bush would never do this ? If you do believe he never would then any logical deebate over other matters would seem moot. Cheers Doug
Post #58,153 by Mike 10/21/02 9:40:13 PM Reply	Well.... what is FACT is that the U.S. had the opportunity to seize Iraq and "manage" their oil at the end of the gulf war. I guess their oil lust was temporarily sated by something else eh? Nobody seems able to give a good account of why this occurred (without it flying in the face of "its all about the oil"). Now....I'm not saying that oil is irrelevant. Saddam with control of all the oil and couple hundred nukes is a nightmare scenario. What I really object to is being told how "obvious" it is that it is ONLY about the oil and any fool can see that it has nothing to do with security etc etc. To support this argument.......the grand daddy piece of evidence is supposedly...North Korea. See!.......this PROVES its all about the oil. Well........unfortunately this argument explodes into a trillion tiny droplets of protoplasm if one is forced to consider that we were on the brink of war with N. Korea in 1994. And it wasn't about oil...WAS IT?. And it would have cost a darn sight more lives than Iraq ever will. So what do people do? They conveniently disregard this inconvenient fact. Well jeeesh...this doesn't fit with our oil theory...so........ummmmmmmmmmm....didn't happen. >>Someone needs to teach you the meaning of blatant hipoccracy While were on the subject of teaching, someone needs to teach you how to spell hypocrisy! [Sorry couldn't resist. Yes I'm a bitch :-) ] >>hasn't it reached your conciousness where OBL is at the moment ? No. Where is he? You really should tell the U.S government you know. Is he alive? How do you know this? Can you provide links please? I think the thing which has you convinced that you know where OBL is hiding is the same thing which has you convinced that Iraq poses no security threat. You are a true believer. Al Qaeda has presences in 30-40 countries. Pakistan is certainly a good candidate. So is Yemen, Bangledesh, Somalia, Indonesia, Chechnya. Its also possible that he is dead. This gets my 20 bucks at the moment. >>If you are intelligent oh here we go...........well I CAN spell hypocrisy....does that count? [okay, okay 1 point deducted for second low blow :-) ] >>you will also have to be prepared to admit that if tomorrow Saddam Hussien >>stepped down and left Iraq, Bush would again change his story You mean change the story to justify invasion? Not really. >>Are you willing to state point blank that Bush would never do this ? Would never do anything so naive :-) I would say that Bush would then evaluate his replacement and act accordingly. Let's turn it around. Are you willing to state point blank that if Saddam gets killed in a coup and is replaced with a person who a) allows unlimited access to UN inspectors b) seeks international help in decommissioning WMDs c) cuts military spending in half in an attempt to buy food/water/medicine ...you still see the U.S. invading? I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,177 by dmarker2 10/21/02 11:30:04 PM 10/22/02 12:15:35 AM Reply	Re: No proof other than opinion !!! 1# "what is FACT is that the U.S. had the opportunity to seize Iraq and "manage" their oil at the end of the gulf war. I guess their oil lust was temporarily sated by something else eh? Nobody seems able to give a good account of why this occurred (without it flying in the face of "its all about the oil")." No! US had no poltical capability to sieze Iraq at end gulf war & it is simply naive & bar-room politics to believe Bush snr had that option. Militarily it could have been done but the coalition Bush put together was only achieved by Bush committing to those participants that the war was only to push Iraq out of Kuwait. If US army had pushed on to Bhagdad he would have triggered an Arab revolt & Bush would have been branded a liar by those Arab govts he got in behind his coalition. So the facts as stated by Bush himself are that he did not have the mandate or real political ability to go on to Bhagdad. 2# "nothing to do with security etc etc." Mike - what "security" ???? - The only security in relation to Iraq is oil security!. 3#Well........unfortunately this argument explodes into a trillion tiny droplets of protoplasm if one is forced to consider that we were on the brink of war with N. Korea in 1994. And it wasn't about oil...WAS IT Mike, can you produce a single popular daily that from the time that backs up your insistance that we were on the verge of war with NK in 1994 ??? - Cheney & Rumz have been on the verge of war with at least 4 nations. My point here is that Cheney & Rumsfeld have wanted to engage in pre-emptive nuke strikes against several countries not just NK - these guys are warmongers who believe might is total right. 4# hipoccracy - true but is this the best point you can score !!! 5# You forgot to add, that the replacement for Saddam has to stick his nose up the republicans rear ends whilst on his knees, yes then I would agree that Bush & crew would probably not invade. Why bother when you finally have the target govt on a leash. Cheers Doug Marker Edited by dmarker2 Oct. 22, 2002, 12:15:35 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,243 by Mike 10/22/02 10:14:28 AM Reply	CNN, Washington Post, CBS [link\|http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/04/korea.brink/#2\|CNN] [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50658-2002Oct19.html\|WashintonPost] [link\|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/12/02/world/main24060.shtml\|CBS] I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,560 by dmarker2 10/22/02 7:15:32 PM Reply	Re: CNN, Washington Post, CBS "produce a single popular daily that from the time" As I though - those items are all from 5 years after the supposed event - but the main point I was making was that the event was not publicised at the time & that there were many similar events over the past 12 years. Hmmmm no reponse to the other reoplies. I guess this topic is too set in concrete for either of us to make concessions. Cheers Doug
Post #58,651 by Mike 10/22/02 11:44:11 PM Reply	Oh I see ...if you want stuff from 1994.....here you go. Note: I'm not sure that any of them say expressly "we are on the brink of war". But I don't think you are asking for that....jsut that the reports are credible. I think they are and I think the links provided support this. [link\|http://nl3.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BG&p_theme=bg&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=korea%20AND%20perry&s_dispstring=korea%20perry%20AND%20date(3/1/1994%20to%203/31/1994)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=3/1/1994%20to%203/31/1994&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:A&xcal_useweights=no\|Link1] Boston Globe article describing increase in tactical air capacity [link\|http://www.fas.org/news/dprk/1994\|Link2] Here is a year's worth of articles (Warning some link rot...but also a lot of good stuff. Some sobering words from characters like John McCain) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,763 by dmarker 10/23/02 10:05:26 AM Reply	Re: No ya don't All that you posted were articles common knowledge info re why US had such a massive army in south korea. We all knew Nth Korea was run by a f**wit (Kim Il Sung) who had done bizzare things like blast the USS Pueblo, & bomb airliners, sent killer squads to wipe out Korean pres (got within yards), dig tunnels under DMZ (at least 3), & kidnap Japs etc: etc: I used to visit Korea during this era & I can tell you it was worse than any security you have ever* experinced. Your reports aren't what I call public awareness of a major confrontation with Korea. Cheers Doug (but I do appreciate the trouble you went to)
Post #58,826 by Mike 10/23/02 12:03:01 PM Reply	Do too (with knobs on) You asked in "No proof other than opinion" >>Mike, can you produce a single popular daily that from the time >>that backs up your insistance that we were on the verge of war with NK >>in 1994 ??? I have done this I'm inclined to think. The links back up the assertion. Period. They back it up VERY well. Now I have to prove: "PUBLIC AWARENESS of a major confrontation with Korea". Sweet huh? Let me guess.....next comes proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Then.......... clear and compelling evidence. -Mike I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,186 by Brandioch 10/22/02 12:47:43 AM Reply	Not "nightmare". Just your "fantasy". Saddam with control of all the oil and couple hundred nukes is a nightmare scenario. Considering that he hasn't even been shown to have developed a SINGLE nuke, I'd say that was more of your paranoid fantasies than a "nightmare". What I really object to is being told how "obvious" it is that it is ONLY about the oil and any fool can see that it has nothing to do with security etc etc. That is because you can't tell reality from fantasy. The reality is that no one has shown that Saddam has even a SINGLE nuke. Nor that he has the capability to produce one. And that is just the START. He also lacks the missle technology to launch it this way. And so forth. In other words, Saddam is incapable of threatening the USofA. Well........unfortunately this argument explodes into a trillion tiny droplets of protoplasm if one is forced to consider that we were on the brink of war with N. Korea in 1994. Well, in your mind it does. A different administration with a different agenda that did NOT want to invade Iraq was willing to go to war with N.K. in 1994. Once again, someone unrelated to the current situation did something different in a different situation and that PROVES your point about this situation. Another religious nutcase.
Post #58,270 by Mike 10/22/02 10:56:21 AM Reply	I would wrestle with you because I like the sport....but alas...you got all rude on me again. Bye sweetie :-) I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Post #58,263 by screamer 10/22/02 10:47:38 AM Reply	Pretty much the same... From: [link\|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html#Intro\|http://www.cia.gov/c...eos/kn.html#Intro] After decades of mismanagement, the North relies heavily on international food aid to feed its population, while continuing to expend resources to maintain an army of about 1 million. North Korea's long-range missile development and research into nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and massive conventional armed forces are of major concern to the international community. 1. Dictatorship 2. Power obsessed - spending most of GNP on weapons while citizenry starves 3. Dangerous neighborhood 4. Threat to the world 5. No longer economically viable in the modern economy or political structure of the world. 6. Brutal to it's own people I could go on :-), but I'd say we have a match. Now the only thing I can't find is one reason to defend these kinds of regiemes... That's way too much of a stretch. It can make intelligent people sound like morons. Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #58,468 by Ashton 10/22/02 4:36:35 PM Reply	Mission Insoluble so long as humans run in sycophant packs, are easily frightened into servility, give allegiance to chimeras in the Sky (each one Different yet each one Right-eous.) Oh and bellicose - did I mention the great essay on Why Men Love War [By another Burke: James F. Burke] ?? Meanwhile the Language shall be raped, the cant shall become more surreal and .. the unconscionable Repo cabal in power: shall not listen to any outside commentary except to 'buffer' same, spin, rinse, blow-dry and .. continue the drum-beat. With 20,000 nukes in their security blanket and the bagman a room away. Theme: Noboby fucks with Paul Lazzarro! Hail Columbia Hail Leader Heil Leader Heil F\ufffdhrer Ich spreche kein Amerikanische F\ufffdhrer befiel. Wir folgen. [saw this sign on a panel in a captured U-boat]
Post #58,950 by jb4 10/23/02 6:13:12 PM Reply	Consider this the request for said links... As far as "concern" is concerned (Pregnant pause for appreciation of play on words.......thank you), I frankly don't see it. Bush is as "concerned" about NK's nukes as I am "concerned" as to whether I'll have an accident on the way home tonight; it's troublesome, but nothing different will be done about it. Kim is soooooo much more dangerous that Saddam, but are we going to unilaterally "disarm" him? Demand he dismantle his "weapons of mass destruction"? Sponsor numerous UN "resolutions" so that we can argue with France over them? Don't make me laugh... jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!