Hey, it's catching on! Bush isn't the only idiot selling

[gerryhatrick]

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-wor...

SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea's defense chief has warned that Pyongyang could also launch a preemptive attack against the United States, with state media saying soldiers were ready to be "human bombs."

"A preemptive attack is not (the) monopoly of the US, and North Korea will never sit idle till it is exposed to a preemptive attack of the US," Defense Minister Kim Il-Chol said, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

"The US is now talking about the six-party talks but in fact, it is zealously inciting hostility toward North Korea while floating all sorts of sheer fictions, utterly indifferent to the talks," he said.

Let me guess the smug rightwing neo-con responses:

"Let 'em try!!"

"It will be his last mistake"

"I ate my crayon!"

Anyway you slice it, the idea of "pre-emption" is one which if adopted widely would make several nations feel justified in attacking the USA.

But, wait. Bush has made us all safer! Right?

[KrustyKidd]

Anyway you slice it, the idea of "pre-emption" is one which if adopted widely would make several nations feel justified in attacking the USA.

Premtive attack with what? Guys like Al Queda who are already trying their best? This is same rhetoric as the Iranian nuke talk, designed for idot's consumption as an attention grabber for the world press. They have squat, know they won't be allowed squat but still have to make their squeaky wheel squeak or be left behind in the 21st century. Their alternative is to change and become part of the modern world which their leaders don't want, hence, the bogus rhetoric that they all know means nothing.

I hate to ask you to move up beyond name calling and your leader Michael Moore's rhetoric but, you have to in order to understand. When was the last time you saw a defeated leader allowed to speak publically on any subject and be held in esteem as a head of state? Such is the goings on in Iran as the old, more moderate leader is given podium time in order to appoligise for the new 'hothead.' It's called good cop bad cop and works very well on the untrained masses both local and international. What it does is draw attention to the problems they have and the 'squeaky wheel' but then difusses the nutbar who got the attention in the first place letting the world know that Iran can be dealt with.

The back door channels are wide open in Iran's case so, they all know where they stand in Tehran and Washington. It's just the rest of the world that only gets their news from the press that are left in the dark about what is really going on. What's going on? Easy - fear of a sucessful Iraq making them look bad and affecting the Mullahs hold on power over an ever increasing intellectual society. Simple, and realistic. The Communists in the Soviet Union did everything in their power to thwart the modern world as well. Truely, they are in a tough spot but, time is against them.

In North Korea's case it's the same - holding onto power in a modern world where they are being left behind. They want freebees galore. Do you think for a second that without nuclear brinkmanship anybody would even talk to these people? The have squat to offer and their economy is in shambles and their human rights record is terrible. Nobody wants anything they have so, you have to play the cards you're left with which is the fear of nuclear aquisition.

The US, Israel, Japan, China etc is not going to allow rougue states to have nuclear weapons so it doesn't even enter into any realistic equation as a factor. In fact, it's a given they will never attain that. It's just how far, short of attack will the world go to make sure they do not?

First there is no. Then there is an argument. Then there is 'we're going to anyhow' and then talks begin. If you talk right and threaten here and say you have this and that at strategic times, then you can play the reward part out a bit before the talks close down and a flat out punishment regime is instituted. That is the poker game in play right now. Once they cross a certain line, then they get no goodies but prior to that, their mssion is to maximize the rewards without entering the punitive zone.

As for invasion of either country - forget it. Bombing of the facilities where the stuff is being used and whatever, a given. Missile delivery systems - gone. Like, they won't even bother building anything on a scale to deliver. Sure, they will plan and make facilities to play the hand out but if the uranium comes and they have delivery systems, they'll lose both hence, they will do the show to whatever degree they need to get the responses they need.

Rhetoric and sword rattling - a given. Iran just finished 'Holy Phrophet' where they dragged out their new weapons ( a flying plane that is actually a hovercraft) to show how they are powerful but, as I stated before, Oman or any of a number of local states has them outclassed technology wise and the Fith Fleet can out gun anything the Iranians can move. So, whatever they have conventionally stays at home or is lost. So, it seems, they can rattle their swords all they want, without effect. Their concentration is in Iraq and at home.

While they may be able to influence to a small degree what happens in Iraq through various means including negotiations with the US and Iraqi government, home is where the attention lies. And, no matter how they pull out of this problem, there will always be a modern world moving in on them. Same with North korea.

[Montgomery Burns]

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article.

Perhaps NK will use the nukes that Clinton gave them.

[GostHacked]

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article.

Perhaps NK will use the nukes that Clinton gave them.

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!.

But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now.

[Montgomery Burns]

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article.

Perhaps NK will use the nukes that Clinton gave them.

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!.

But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now.

Actually, I believe that the problem is that you won't admit it, Gosthacked. I have posted on this forum numerous times the link from SIPRI (that Swedish Peace organization) that shows that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the USA. Numerous times I have asked liberals to name just one piece of equipment in the Iraq military that is US-made. I have not come across one who could answer this question, even though there must be something as they did sell him 1%.

57% came from the USSR, 13% from France, and 12% came from China. That's a total of 82% of its arms supplied by the top 3 countries, who just happened to on the UN Security Council and were owed billions by Saddam....and (Surprise!) voted against the USA, thus giving the left its "illegal" war mantra.

As for NK, I can't help it if Clinton's presidency was the most scandalous of the 20th century.

As for Iran, I'll turn this over to the ever quotable Ann Coulter:

Iran-Contra was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."

You know she's right.

[GostHacked]

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article.

Perhaps NK will use the nukes that Clinton gave them.

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!.

But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now.

Actually, I believe that the problem is that you won't admit it, Gosthacked. I have posted on this forum numerous times the link from SIPRI (that Swedish Peace organization) that shows that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the USA. Numerous times I have asked liberals to name just one piece of equipment in the Iraq military that is US-made. I have not come across one who could answer this question, even though there must be something as they did sell him 1%.

57% came from the USSR, 13% from France, and 12% came from China. That's a total of 82% of its arms supplied by the top 3 countries, who just happened to on the UN Security Council and were owed billions by Saddam....and (Surprise!) voted against the USA, thus giving the left its "illegal" war mantra.

As for NK, I can't help it if Clinton's presidency was the most scandalous of the 20th century.

As for Iran, I'll turn this over to the ever quotable Ann Coulter:

Iran-Contra was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats."

You know she's right.

When will you admit it is all for the oil and strategic control of the Middle East as opposed to the mantra of 'freedom and democracy'?

[KrustyKidd]

When will you admit it is all for the oil and strategic control of the Middle East as opposed to the mantra of 'freedom and democracy'?

Freedom and democracy are not the end but rather the tool being used to slow and hopefully stop conservative Wahhabisim. As for the other point, I think I addressed your control issue here.

[gerryhatrick]

Premtive attack with what?

Hey, I was right. That sounds a lot like the "Let 'em try" meme I predicted.

You didn't eat your crayon too did you?

[gerryhatrick]

This must've made Gerry's weekend; a totalitarian dictator threatening to attack the USA. I can just imagine Gerry gleefully dancing when he read this article.

Oh yeah, I loved it Monty. Danced in the streets just like all the Palis did after 9/11.

[KrustyKidd]

Hey, I was right. That sounds a lot like the "Let 'em try" meme I predicted.

Gerry, do some mild research on Iran's militay capability. They cannot mount scale sustaining offensive operations beyond their borders. It's not bravado, it's realism.

[gerryhatrick]

Hey, I was right. That sounds a lot like the "Let 'em try" meme I predicted.

Gerry, do some mild research on Iran's militay capability. They cannot mount scale sustaining offensive operations beyond their borders. It's not bravado, it's realism.

"scale sustaining offensive operations"?

WTF is that supposed to mean?

You miss the point anyway. I predicted the irreverent response you provided because I knew our resident rightwingers would miss the point. It doesn't matter if Korea or Iran can hurt the US or it's allies in the area (which they both could, btw. Even you won't claim something that ridiculous). The point is that the idea of a pre-emptive strike is now being touted by enemies of the USA. Iran should begin talking about striking pre-emptively if they feel threatened. It's every nations right, no?

[KrustyKidd]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

It means if they leave home they are in big trouble. Ancient equipment and a substandard supply capability. Their forces are capable of effective defense against a similarily depleted military only.

It doesn't matter if Korea or Iran can hurt the US or it's allies in the area (which they both could, btw. Even you won't claim something that ridiculous).

Stratfor Assesment

Even if all of these systems are as formidable as the Iranians claim, militarily, the Islamic republic is vastly outclassed by Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of quality. In addition, the single most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf is the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which would make short work of any Iranian attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, probably before it could even begin.

Iranian exaggeration of these systems' capabilities has achieved exactly what it was intended to. These exercises, including video of some of the tests, were widely reported in the international media. Reports of Iran's "powerful" and supposedly indigenously designed weapons are meant to cause concern among the Gulf states and remind the United States that attacking Iran would come with a price.

[gerryhatrick]

It doesn't matter if Korea or Iran can hurt the US or it's allies in the area (which they both could, btw. Even you won't claim something that ridiculous).

Stratfor Assesment

Even if all of these systems are as formidable as the Iranians claim, militarily, the Islamic republic is vastly outclassed by Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of quality. In addition, the single most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf is the U.S.blah blah blah blah

Why the H do you waste our time? Yours and mine?

I'm tired of answering these simple logical misses you keep making.

Iran and North Korea could hurt the US or it's allies in the area. That is a simple undeniable fact.

What straw man are you debating with? Whether North Korea or Iran would win or not? Who cares?

[KrustyKidd]

Iran and North Korea could hurt the US or it's allies in the area. That is a simple undeniable fact.

Gerry, my kid sister could hurt the US or it's allies. The point is, how much, and at what cost? The price they would pay and the minor damage they would invoke doesn't add up in any bizzarro scenario. No ground held, a destroyed military, their defensive capability degraded dramaticaly by superior air power with their troops exposed and a demoralized public rioting in the streets for regime change. Doesn't add up. Oh, but they will hurt somebody I'm sure. At an overall loss rate of twenty to one.

[KrustyKidd]

The point is that the idea of a pre-emptive strike is now being touted by enemies of the USA. Iran should begin talking about striking pre-emptively if they feel threatened. It's every nations right, no?

Now, to your point. Yes it is every nation's right. And, might makes right in many cases as does being right in the moral and legal sense.

So, if a nation has legal or moral grounds, has approval for action (or no strong opposition) then they could possibly use that might without fear of reprisals from other nations. In that event, they had best be mightier than whom they are attacking and be sure the defenders have no strong friends. In this case, I would assume that unless another nation has provoked Iran to respond (ie: invaded land which is theirs) then they would have a tough sell job at the UN and may find themselves getting ganged up on by a few of the Gulf states as well as the USA with the royal asskicking and rioting in the streets for regime change that I spoke of in the above post.

How does this tie in with Korea? Easy. Unless there is a UN resolution that allows them to build weapons then they would be in flagrent violation of the existing laws. And, open to all sorts of action pre- emtive or emptive, whatever you want to call it today. Do they have lots of friends with military capability and a military that can move without fear of reprisals and opening themselves up to a counter attack? Sure they can hurt South Korea, but at the cost of their own country. Hence, to hold onto power, the leadership cannot attack, yet, they can rattle sabres and threaten they will make a bomb but, we all know they never will attain that and so do they. Hence, it is all political.

When the talking stops, the bombs start to fall. Remember that Gerry.

[gerryhatrick]

When the talking stops, the bombs start to fall. Remember that Gerry.

Hard to forget that with Bush holding the biggest set of reigns around. He never even bothered talking, with anyone.

[KrustyKidd]

Hard to forget that with Bush holding the biggest set of reigns around. He never even bothered talking, with anyone.

Oh that's right. Saddam didn't get the 1991 fax that said to destroy his WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation. Did he get the other ones or maybe the UN didn't provide the necessary communiques telling him what he had to do in order to be in complience with the fourteen resolutions?

After all that, what was Bush supposed to say? "Get rid of your WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation?" Think that was said more than a few times so, your point is hubris.

[gerryhatrick]

Hard to forget that with Bush holding the biggest set of reigns around. He never even bothered talking, with anyone.

Oh that's right. Saddam didn't get the 1991 fax that said to destroy his WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation. Did he get the other ones or maybe the UN didn't provide the necessary communiques telling him what he had to do in order to be in complience with the fourteen resolutions?

After all that, what was Bush supposed to say? "Get rid of your WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation?" Think that was said more than a few times so, your point is hubris.

There was no need for an invasion of Iraq. Politics aside, we both know that.

The "WMD" that "everyone agreed" he had were also understood to be (if anything) old chem shells that had been lying around since gulf war 1. Nobody really beleived he was an immient threat.

The idea of it being a "pre-emptive" war is a lying joke.

A UN resolution is not an excuse for any nation to unilateraly begin an invasion. Sorry.

[KrustyKidd]

There was no need for an invasion of Iraq. Politics aside, we both know that.

Gerry, did you ever for one second thnk that it was about WMDs? If you did then you are way behind what is really going on. A pretext to place a force in the heart of the middle east to incite Saudi Arabia to begin clamping down on Al Queda, which they did. The rest of your post is redundent rhetoric for the emotionally challenged.