Re: N. Korea the same as Iraq?

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!