What's so special about us wanting to invade the middle east as opposed to N. Korea? We kept hearing "Weapons of Mass Destruction" over and over again when it came to Iraq. Yet, isn't that what we'd call a Nuclear Weapon? Iraq was "TRYING to get a nuclear weapon" Iran is TRYING to get a nuclear weapon, etc. etc. etc. That's all we hear. Yet, N.Korea developed a nuclear weapon and threatened to even terrorise us with it, but we don't invade. We don't even bother to talk to the Koreans diplomatically. That is still a war just put on hold and we treated it like it was not more of a situation than the middle east.
Could it be because we already have bases in the Korean region and didn't have any yet in the Middle East? There is no exit strategy in my opinion because we didn't intend on exiting. That's why we've been building 14 permanent bases in the region. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
N. Korea vs Middle East
N. Korea vs Middle East
n korea is too stong at mo
m east controls oil
no oil no n korea tanks
no oil no n korea planes
no oil less problems
m east controls oil
no oil no n korea tanks
no oil no n korea planes
no oil less problems
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
N. Korea vs Middle East
You have a good point there. I find it ALMOST amusing how we come up with these excuses to invade a country when none of the excuses matches the real reasons.
N. Korea vs Middle East
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
-
Hugh Janus
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:55 am
N. Korea vs Middle East
No oil = No interest...
N. Korea vs Middle East
I think Bush made a stupid decision when he decided to invade Iraq, but then.. I didn't vote for him either.
We can't invade N. Korea, they're too strong right now, why would you go after the country you know has alot of weapons? Isn't that kinda just asking for trouble.
I'm not saying any of you did this, but one thing i really hate, is when people complain about Bush, or his actions, but either voted him for him, or didn't vote at all. If you're not going to do anything about it, don't complain about it either.
:-4 Gel
We can't invade N. Korea, they're too strong right now, why would you go after the country you know has alot of weapons? Isn't that kinda just asking for trouble.
I'm not saying any of you did this, but one thing i really hate, is when people complain about Bush, or his actions, but either voted him for him, or didn't vote at all. If you're not going to do anything about it, don't complain about it either.
:-4 Gel
N. Korea vs Middle East
The funny thing is, we already have vehicles invented that doesn't require oil. If we can do that, factories, etc... could change as well. So, what is so important about oil anymore then? Well, besides the fact they won't mass produce these inventions.
N. Korea vs Middle East
freemind;587669 wrote: The funny thing is, we already have vehicles invented that doesn't require oil. If we can do that, factories, etc... could change as well. So, what is so important about oil anymore then? Well, besides the fact they won't mass produce these inventions.
oil is not only fuel
roads /tarmacadam
lubrcants /oil based
rubber /by product
more to oil than just fuel at mo most planes tanks need oil based fuel
oil is not only fuel
roads /tarmacadam
lubrcants /oil based
rubber /by product
more to oil than just fuel at mo most planes tanks need oil based fuel
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."