N. Korea threat - real or propaganda?

17 Apr 2013 22:25 #51 by chickaree
North Korea demands UN lift sanctions in exchange for dialogue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 2Y20130418

What I believe they have been going for all along.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

17 Apr 2013 23:10 #52 by Jekyll

chickaree wrote: North Korea demands UN lift sanctions in exchange for dialogue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 2Y20130418

What I believe they have been going for all along.


That has really been in the back of my mind this whole time. They'll "rattle" until ready to press the button, and something will give. :like: Course, I'm gettin' pretty sick and tired of their sabre rattling all together.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 11:51 #53 by Rick

chickaree wrote: North Korea demands UN lift sanctions in exchange for dialogue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 2Y20130418

What I believe they have been going for all along.

Give them more time, just like we give Iran more time to build the bomb. Dialog never works with these nuts so we'll just wait for the launch before we get serious as a world community. Hopefully a nuke won't ever get pass our defense.

The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 12:01 #54 by archer

Rick wrote:

chickaree wrote: North Korea demands UN lift sanctions in exchange for dialogue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... 2Y20130418

What I believe they have been going for all along.

Give them more time, just like we give Iran more time to build the bomb. Dialog never works with these nuts so we'll just wait for the launch before we get serious as a world community. Hopefully a nuke won't ever get pass our defense.


What is the alternative to giving them more time, or attempting to talk to them? Would you advocate a preemptive attack? Same question for Iran.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 12:29 #55 by FredHayek
Good question about a pre-emptive attack. I would suggest we don't do that with North Korea unless we get permission from China and inform South Korea, Japan and Russia what we are doing.

Iran? Less political to attack this nation with few friends, probably only have to inform China and Russia what you are doing. And let Israel go on alert for any retaliation from their Palestinian minions.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 12:32 #56 by Jekyll

FredHayek wrote: Good question about a pre-emptive attack. I would suggest we don't do that with North Korea unless we get permission from China and inform South Korea, Japan and Russia what we are doing.

Iran? Less political to attack this nation with few friends, probably only have to inform China and Russia what you are doing. And let Israel go on alert for any retaliation from their Palestinian minions.


:thumbsup: I would like to add that both places (NK & Iran) would also need to cross the line somehow to justify invasion. That would give us full support imo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 13:15 #57 by archer
If Iraq taught us anything, it's that when the US attacks another country, removes its dictator, and then tries to rebuild it in its own image, even with the best of intentions, it doesn't make us safer, it doesn't endear us to the people, nor does it keep the country from reverting to a dictatorship like government. So what's the up side?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 13:19 #58 by FredHayek

archer wrote: If Iraq taught us anything is that when the US attacks another country, removes its dictator, and then tries to rebuild it in its own image, even with the best of intentions, it doesn't make us safer, it doesn't endear us to the people, nor does it keep the country from reverting to a dictatorship. So what's the up side?


You have been reading too much lefty media. The majority Shiites are very happy Saddam is dead. Hussein killed over one million of his own citizens. The Kurds in northern Iraq are also very happy to no longer be oppressed by their own goverment and are receiving many of the oil royalties from the region instead of them building Saddam another palace.

I don't see any Iraqi Kurds trying to blow us up or any Iraqi Shia flying airplanes into out skyscrapers.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 13:23 #59 by archer
I think you have been reading too many right wing media attempts at justifying the Iraq war after the fact. A whole lot of Iraqis died, thousands of Americans died, tens of thousands of Americans were wounded, and the country still is not safe. And neither are we.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

18 Apr 2013 13:26 #60 by FredHayek

archer wrote: I think you have been reading too many right wing media attempts at justifying the Iraq war after the fact. A whole lot of Iraqis died, thousands of Americans died, tens of thousands of Americans were wounded, and the country still is not safe. And neither are we.


So you would prefer Saddam was still in charge? A lot of Iraqi's did die, and way too many Americans were killed and injured but for a 10 year war the numbers are very low compared to Korea or Vietnam. and Iraqis have a democracy no matter how flawed it is.

Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.173 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+