Today at 07:37 AM Blackhawk said this in Post #9
Okay so since you disagree with how we are doing it then we are not doing it at all. I see.
It's not a question of "how" we are dealing with N Korea; the fact is that we are not dealing with them at all. Talks through 3rd parties aren't doing anything. See any results yet? No. Wonder why? Because we aren't having direct talks.
This isn't rocket science.
But there is no attempt to disarm? Huh? I know we have told N korea to not develop any nuclear capabilities. We have basically said do not arm.
Big frickin' deal. We've told every non-nuclear power in the world not to develop nuclear capabilities also. Are you seriously saying that such a warning constitutes an attempt to disarm?
If you're getting ready to shoot someone in the head, and I tell you "don't do that", have I made an attempt to disarm you? Of course not.
Telling someone "don't do that" isn't an attempt to disarm them. How lame, Blackhawk; I'm surprised you even tried to throw such a lame excuse out; it's obvious you didn't think about it before posting.
I guess this was supposed to make me upset. Sorry. I told you the reasons why I did not see your point.
Yes. You're a conservative, and you aren't going to say anything critical of Dubya's foreign policy. But you don't have anything substantial; just a bias.
The government is worried about both Iraq and N Korea. Your first post made it sound like we were not doing anything to stop them. That is untrue and you know it because you posted so above.
Except that the govt is
not doing anything to stop NKorea. And your claim that telling them "naughty, naughty, don't do that" somehow means we're doing something - that's downright laughable, Blackhawk.
The Israel is concerned for no reason huh?
That's correct.
And how do you know this since we really do not know what weapons they do and do not have. You don't. I don't. The inspectors don't.
Wrong. The inspectors have a very good idea of what the Iraqis have. And so do the Israelis, and the USA. That's what military intelligence is all about.
Morever--and you deliberately ignored this point because you couldn't refute it--there is the past history of the economic and military sanctions. It stands to reason that, in comparison to the first Gulf War, Iraq has far less military hardware today, because it has been under lockdown for 14 years. It wasn't under sanctions prior to that Gulf War, and was buying arms left and right.
Even then, all that Iraq could manage was a few Scud missles that (more often than not) missed their targets and/or were shot down by Patriot missiles. Your near-total ignorance of the military history of that event is seriously affecting your ability to discuss this.
This was true before it is not an effective detterent when you think the other nation is evil incarnate.
Huh? That's total and utter nonsense. If Israel's ability to retaliate wasn't a deterrent, then Iraq would have already attacked them last year, the year before, or some other time.
Besides, Iraq has always thought that Israel was "evil incarnate", to use your silly terminology. They thought that about Israel back in the first Gulf war, and they continue to think that way now. So I don't know what point you thought you were going to prove, by throwing that into the discussion.
You're just guessing now, because your position is so weak.
Well since many feel that if WW3 does occur that a good starting place is the Middle East and given the history of the hebrews and the arab nations your comment is absurd.
You've just demonstrated that you know zero about military planning.
As far as the military goes, there's been far more focus on another world war starting in the Korean peninsula, since Americans fought there before, since no peace treaty was ever signed there, since it's ringed by two other nuclear powers, since nuclear showdowns occurred with China there previously, since the million men in the NKorean army are projected to quickly overrun the SKorean defenses and be in Seoul in a matter of days, killing tens of thousands of American GIs in the process, and since we'd have to act in order to prevent Japan from acting on its own, which would destabilize all of Asia. Oh, and I might add: the NKoreans frequently test and probe the SKorean defenses, building undergroudn tunnels for ferrying troops, creating border incidents along the 38th parallel, etc.
The other key theater for such a war to break out was in Europe, since NATO and Warsaw Pact forces were head-to-head there as well, since our conventional forces were far less than Warsaw Pact forces (meaning that we would have to go nuclear first, to stave off an invasion), and since the E European states were slowly trying to break away from the USSR; i.e., Poland and the Baltic states.
But that's all changed now. Since the fall of the USSR, that theater is no longer seen as a potential WW3 flashpoint. Same thing for the Mideast; since the USSR is no longer around and trying to extend its influence into the area, there is no potential for superpower conflict there. That only leaves the Korean peninsula as a serious flashpoint for superpower military conflict.
So the "many" who feel that the Mideast is a potential flashpoint for world war are mostly fundamentalist christians with their rapture conspiracies, and not actual military planners.
I can see you do not like Israel but you have to be able to see that Israel being attacked is not a good thing for world peace. And I do not want N Korea to attack Japan either.
Irrelevant. As I indicated above, Iraq's ability to attack Israel is far less than it was during the first Gulf war, and Israel's ability to retaliate is much higher than it was previously. You're blowing Iraq's ability way out of proportion, due to your total lack of knowledge in this area.
we were very lucky it didn't.
Huh? It wasn't luck at all; the situation you're describing simply was not (and is not) plausible.
Like others have said Israel would of likely responded if not for us.
Which would have fractured the Gulf coalition forces. I pointed that out; I doubt you knew about it prior to that.
However if they did attack then it would not be a huge stretch to have another Muslim nationenter into the fight agaist Israel and then who knows what.
Actually, it would be a huge stretch. With the US and the UK over there right now, no other Arab nation is going to want to side with Iraq and be declared a supporter of a terrorist state. That would just make them a target for US/British invasion as well.
As I said: your cartoon scenario simply isn't plausible - at least not to anyone who knows a nickel's worth about the facts.
Oh please if you do not like President Bush and his politics okay but to say what you are saying is absurd.
ON the contrary. What I said is exactly on target.
You could say that 9/11 provoked a more serious look into Iraq but not hat you said above.
And if I said that, I'd be lying - because 9/11 did not do any such thing. 9/11 happened in September. The Dubya administration said nothing about Iraq in September of 2001. Iraq wasn't an issue at all.
- They said nothing about Iraq in October of 2001.
- They said nothing in November of 2001.
- They said nothing in December of 2001.
- Nothing in January, February, or March of 2002.
- Nothing in April, May or June of 2002.
- Nothing in July of 2002.
They said
absolutely nothing, until the entire corporate scandal mess hit the press wires, and until the election campaign for midterm congressional seats was about ready to start. That, and zero signficant progress was made on hunting down bin Laden.
Dubya needed a distraction, and he knew that his domestic numbers were really low. The country rallies around a president in times of war and external threat. So if you don't have a real external threat ,then by golly - manufacture one. That's exactly what happened here.
Your bias is so revealing in your posts it makes a serious look at them folly.
It's strange how the utterly unlearned in such matters see an informed opinion as biased.
