North Korea caves in

[Montgomery Burns]

To the issue of nuclear proliferation: the Pentagon just announced its new nuclear policy, which authorizes the "preemptive" use of nuclear weapons against anyone using "or intending to use WMD" against the U.S. or its allies and in cases of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy".

Kinda blunts their credibility on the whole nuke issue, don't it?

Now, given the U.S.'s readiness to go to war on preemptive grounds (the Iraq war war billed, in part, as a preemptive war against an enemy with stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a dangeropus nuclear program,allegations that were sketchy at the time and subsequently proven false), and are now considering reserving the right to, essentailly, nuke anyone they damn well please, plus the fact that they are sitting on an aresnal of some 7,000 nuclear warheads, I have to wonder about all the fuss over North Korea and Iran...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for Bush.

I will ignore your lies about the claims of the "Bush administration" readiness to go to war on "subsequently proven false claims".

I have read the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq signed by Congress.

Apparently you are clueless about this.

That's what happens when you rely on the Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC.

They are leftists and they support Chretien's family making millions off the blood of the Iraqi people. That is the leftist ideology; leech off the people.

And I will not even bring up Paul Martin accepting a $1 million from Saddam Hussein for one of Paul "we lead the world" Martin's shipping companies.

Oops, I guess I just did.

[Black Dog]

Nonsense. The Iraqi army was one of the top armies in the world.

It's a good thing you had zero credibility prior to this post, because this single statement would have wiped it out.

Iraq overview

The Iraqi army lacks any real offensive capabilities, even towards smaller countries such as Jordan. In the absence of external interference, it is capable of confronting the militias of the Kurds and the Shiites, and the armed forces of a diminutive country like Kuwait, but not more than that. There is no real cause for concern that Saddam will respond to an attack on Iraq with a ground assault on the neighboring countries or that he poses a real threat to them, even if the U.S. attack is not preceded by a large concentration of U.S. ground forces in the region. The only qualification to this is that Kuwait and the Kurds are likely to require some ground reinforcements by U.S. ground forces.

In a war against Iraq, U.S. forces will enjoy total air supremacy from the outset. This translates into unrestricted activity in Iraqi skies and the capacity to strike any priority target.

In a war against Iraq, U.S. forces will also enjoy total naval supremacy. This translates into an ability to assemble a naval force of any size in the Persian Gulf not far from Iraq, and from there to operate aircraft carriers without difficulty. It also affords some compensation for the difficulty in finding ground bases close to Iraq.

[GostHacked]

I will ignore your lies about the claims of the "Bush administration" readiness to go to war on "subsequently proven false claims".

By now you know they are not lies. The Bush Admin has to constantly adjust their 'language' to reflect the recently uncovered bull. Lies to cover lies, eventually it bites you in the ass. These lies, however, may just eat you whole.

That's what happens when you rely on the Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC.

This is laughable. 100% I trust CBC more than let's say CNN, MSNBC, or ...Fox News? Also you should look elsewhere for supporting evidence on your position.

Plenty of other news websites out there that will give you a bigger picture of what is going on. And that would be your first mistake assuming we ONLY read CBC. Huge mistake. I know that the people who visit this web forum, generaly know more than the Average Amercian Bear.

And I would be scared of North Korea(ahh not) or China let's say. You think that the US can just overun a Chinese military? M.A.D. IF they cannot clean Iraq up, what makes you think they can do that to a country that actually poses a threat to the US? The US does not even really know what they are up against in a county like China.

North Korea has singed on with paper. Now you have to wait to see if that will pan out. Hopefully we don't have to wait another 10 years to find out that they still have not disarmed. They must have some kick ass sheep. That wool over your eyes is pretty thick.

[moderateamericain]

I will ignore your lies about the claims of the "Bush administration" readiness to go to war on "subsequently proven false claims".

By now you know they are not lies. The Bush Admin has to constantly adjust their 'language' to reflect the recently uncovered bull. Lies to cover lies, eventually it bites you in the ass. These lies, however, may just eat you whole.

That's what happens when you rely on the Canada's state-run, taxpayer-funded, Soviet-style CBC.

This is laughable. 100% I trust CBC more than let's say CNN, MSNBC, or ...Fox News? Also you should look elsewhere for supporting evidence on your position.

Plenty of other news websites out there that will give you a bigger picture of what is going on. And that would be your first mistake assuming we ONLY read CBC. Huge mistake. I know that the people who visit this web forum, generaly know more than the Average Amercian Bear.

And I would be scared of North Korea(ahh not) or China let's say. You think that the US can just overun a Chinese military? M.A.D. IF they cannot clean Iraq up, what makes you think they can do that to a country that actually poses a threat to the US? The US does not even really know what they are up against in a county like China.

North Korea has singed on with paper. Now you have to wait to see if that will pan out. Hopefully we don't have to wait another 10 years to find out that they still have not disarmed. They must have some kick ass sheep. That wool over your eyes is pretty thick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few things you pointed out. CBC is notoriously left leaning, if you believe them over CNN you like your news like you like your MCdonalds, have it your way. CNN is by far the most neutral news network. And the United States could fight the Chinese in a war. Modern Armies are not designed around a club, they are designed around the ablility to PROJECT POWER. The united States ability to PROJECT POWER is far greater then that of the chinese. I am not saying the chinese have a weak army by any means, they are trully a force to be reckon with and on the ground; i dont think there is a country that could match up with them. However in the air, and on the sea, They have zero chance. You can have the best ground force in the world, but if you have no way to get it from point A to B then its useless.

[PocketRocket]

You can have the best ground force in the world, but if you have no way to get it from point A to B then its useless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe the point being made was that the USA could not overrun China.

IOW, the USA could not mount a successful invasion on Chinese soil.

Yeah, the US has superior air and sea power. No question.

But to respond to your quote, you can overfly a country with all the planes you like, but to HOLD that country, you need troops on the ground.

That is where ANY country, in trying to hold China, would fail miserably.