north korea launch missile

[Nebbiolo]

Believe it is. Bush commanded the respect of the military which in the Clinton adminstration they did not.

Funny you think there is a increase in terrorism. It's always been there you just had to look to find it. Why it's getting heated is we are hitting back in thier back yard and they don't like it. To bad the liberal media keeps thinking the Iraq situation was the most ridiculously planned war because that is the most farthest from the truth. One day the history books will show how close we came to the great oil war of our time and it still may not be over.

Obama will be fine if he uses good judgement. He will let China sort out North Koreas indiscretions.

I take your point, Mike. However, since the Bush regime came into power, there has been a marked increase in the bitterness and resentment that exists between the west and the middle east. Of course, all of the blame for this can't be laid at Bush's door. But he's not helped the situation and some, myself included, would suggest he's helped set back relations to a a new low.

No more cold war, so start an ideological war with Mohamed.

 

[TX Bill]

So what are you suggesting Obama does?

At the least, any plan of action needs to be clarified with other members states as to whether its legal or not.

There could be certain pressures put on NK via various sanctions. If it it clear that NK acted in breach of the earlier sanctions, I suppose there the must be some recourse that Obama and other nations can take.

But as well, you're placing all this on the shoulders of the US. There are other countries that are involved in all of this process. The US can't just do as it pleases.

Flat wrong there Neb.

We can damn well do what we want do and when we want to do it if it involves the defense of our country. We absolutely do not need the permission of any other country or bureaucratic institutions (see: UN) to eliminate any threat to our sovereignty, perceived or otherwise.

I know that drives the lefty pacifists up the wall to hear that but when it comes to addressing international threats, terrorists, or otherwise. That's the reality of the situation.

Legal you say?

Under who's authority Neb? Who's going to hold the USA accountable if we choose to take actions WE deem necessary to defend our country?

Under that logic, North Korea's actions were "illegal" and they should be held accountable. After all, they just can't do as the please right? So under what mechanism do we convince North Korea of the errors of their ways?

See where that thought process crumbles under the weight of logic and reality?

I understand that most people would love to see sanctions work in place of the use of force to get a country to change their aggressive and belligerent ways. Believe it or not, I too would like to see sanctions and other penalties force North Korea, Iran, and other countries to live in peaceful coexistence with their world neighbors so that all may benefit.

But there comes a time when sanctions are ineffective and do nothing more than hurt the average citizens of that country while the ruling class/dictators, etc... continue to benefit.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Flat wrong there Neb.

We can damn well do what we want do and when we want to do it if it involves the defense of our country. We absolutely do not need the permission of any other country or bureaucratic institutions (see: UN) to eliminate any threat to our sovereignty, perceived or otherwise.

That's bull**** Bill. This is nothing to do with the defence of the USA. It hasn't been threatened. If you invade North Korea without adhering to the UN Charter, of which you're a signatory, you'll be starting an illegal war. It would be a criminal action, Bill. The US is not above the law, even if perhaps it sometimes acts in that way.

This ain't Pearl Harbour, at least not yet.

 

[TX Bill]

Or, as you said... they knew full well it was too late for him to have any impact.

Bush made the UN impose sanctions on N.Korea. Sanctions which they agreed under Bush, but on his way out, they have put two fingers up.

Lets see how Mr Obama responds. Might be worth reminding him that there has already been 'strong international action' - which has been ignored.

Any oxymoron if I ever saw one.

 

[TX Bill]

So we should go to war with them over this... to avoid war? is that your logic here?

I've a much better idea... why don't we leave other countries alone and stop standing shoulder to shoulder with the most corrupt government on the planet who are basically trying to take over the world on the basis of "terrorism". Which accounts for anyone doing anything that isn't viewed as being on America's side:

Iraq - They have WMD's... oh erm no they dont but the people are living in very repressed conditions and even though their government pose no threat to America we must liberate this oil... err I mean these people
Afganistan - See above but the terrorists have planes and they are weapons of mass destruction... especially if we turn a blind eye while they crash them in to buildings, so we can invade them.
NK launch a missile... has no effect on America... lets attack them

See a pattern emerging?

Buddy. Let me make one thing very clear to you.

If the USA wanted to "take over the world," we'd have done it long ago.

Or are you saying that something is holding back the greatest military force on the planet?

Or perhaps that statement was one of the most asinine statements made regarding US foreign policy.

I'll go with the latter.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Any oxymoron if I ever saw one.

So what is strong international action? start a war on a false premise, let the invaded country descend into civil war, and leave 100,000 dead in the process?

 

[Nebbiolo]

Buddy. Let me make one thing very clear to you.

If the USA wanted to "take over the world," we'd have done it long ago.

Or are you saying that something is holding back the greatest military force on the planet?

Or perhaps that statement was one of the most asinine statements made regarding US foreign policy.

I'll go with the latter.

More bull, Bill. leaving aside nuclear weapons, China, Russia and Europe would absolutely batter you.

 

[TX Bill]

North Korea has a long and fairly succesful tradition of brinkmanship with regards to nuclear related activity. Every time they need petrol or food or whatever it is to keep their economy from flatlining, they indulge a little activity like this just to remind the world they still exist.

To a degree it's not really Obama's problem. The major influence on North Korea is China, and to a degree Pyongyang is beholden to them.

I think the idea that North Korea would seriously consider using a nuclear weapon is fanciful. There's no real situation where attacking with nuclear weapons gasins you any advantaqe, because you're reduced to a pile of radioactive ash about an hour later (unless you've got some kind of missile defence shield like the US is building, which DOES give you the ability to attack whoever you want). You have nuclear weapons to ensure that no-one ever thinks about using one on you, and to stop anyone overthrowing your government from outside. The North Koreans aren't stupid, and don't have a deathwish.

And with regard to Bush "knowing how to deal with North Korea" the stance he took with probably had the effect of driving them down the nuclear route. If you hunt around on google then there's plenty of articles relating to how poorly negotiations with the Koreans were handled in the Bush era.

Obviously you weren't "hunting" hard enough.

It's common knowledge (I didn't even have to Google it) that Albright, under Clinton made a real hash of negotiations with North Korea.

Either your Google isn't working, you didn't go far back enough, or you just tried to find something that you wanted to find.

I'll go with the latter.

 

[TX Bill]

Now this could be a coincidence, but it strikes me as very odd that at the end of tough guy Bush's reign, the world seems a heck of a lot more dangerous than it did when Democrat Clinton was calling the shots. The foreign policy of the last administration has seen an increase in terrorism and the most ridiculously planned war since Vietnam. If people think Bush knew how to handle the 'other' side, god help them.

Yep.

Al Qaeda waited for Bush to get into office before hitting the towers.

That way, the world would "seem" a lot more dangerous than when Clinton was in office.

Don't make me Google up all of the terrorist attacks that happened under Clinton's watch.

We weren't any less or any more safe under Clinton than we were under Bush and vice versa. That's just your left leaning glasses giving you a slanted view.

 

[TX Bill]

Believe it is. Bush commanded the respect of the military which in the Clinton adminstration they did not.

Funny you think there is a increase in terrorism. It's always been there you just had to look to find it. Why it's getting heated is we are hitting back in thier back yard and they don't like it. To bad the liberal media keeps thinking the Iraq situation was the most ridiculously planned war because that is the most farthest from the truth. One day the history books will show how close we came to the great oil war of our time and it still may not be over.

Obama will be fine if he uses good judgement. He will let China sort out North Koreas indiscretions.

What?!? The media thought the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were a complete debacle and no good came out of them whatsover???

Well I never....

 

[TX Bill]

I take your point, Mike. However, since the Bush regime came into power, there has been a marked increase in the bitterness and resentment that exists between the west and the middle east. Of course, all of the blame for this can't be laid at Bush's door. But he's not helped the situation and some, myself included, would suggest he's helped set back relations to a a new low.

No more cold war, so start an ideological war with Mohamed.

Again, you cannot have relations with people who's sole goal in life is to kill, murder, and destroy people from every walk of life who don't agree with their ideology.

Diplomacy simply will not work. These types only understand one thing. The use of force. The sooner the rest of the world figures that out, the better off we'll all be in the long run.

There were no relations for Bush to set back with these people. The question you have to ask yourself now is "why aren't the vast majority of those who come down on the peaceful side of their religion not doing more to stamp out the virulent strain that threatens to take them over?"

In short, why aren't they taking care of their own house? If they don't do it, someone will do it for them. You think the response to 9/11 was strong, wait and see what happens if we suffer another one, assuming the president at the time has a backbone to deal with the immediate problem.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Yep.

Al Qaeda waited for Bush to get into office before hitting the towers.

That way, the world would "seem" a lot more dangerous than when Clinton was in office.

Don't make me Google up all of the terrorist attacks that happened under Clinton's watch.

We weren't any less or any more safe under Clinton than we were under Bush and vice versa. That's just your left leaning glasses giving you a slanted view.

That's poppycock. The war in Iraq in particular has sparked a surge in fundamentalism across the middle-east and into Europe. We're talking about Bush and company creating the conditions whereby it is far easier to inculcate the young with radical ideas and ideals.

I find it staggering that you've not picked up on this. Or perhaps it really isn't true and yet one more example of the liberal-media making things up to make Bush and his cronies look bad?

 

[TX Bill]

That's bull**** Bill. This is nothing to do with the defence of the USA. It hasn't been threatened. If you invade North Korea without adhering to the UN Charter, of which you're a signatory, you'll be starting an illegal war. It would be a criminal action, Bill. The US is not above the law, even if perhaps it sometimes acts in that way.

This ain't Pearl Harbour, at least not yet.

Ah, so pre-emptive action is "illegal."

Got it.

Interesting viewpoint coming from someone who doesn't live in the USA.

But let me humor you for just a second and say that IF the USA invaded North Korea under the pretext of a threat to our nation, who quite frankly is going to stop us from taking such action.

I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm just pointing out that the word illegal really doesn't mean much in the international community. After all, the Taliban harbored criminals that committed the 9/11 atrocities. That was "illegal" and yet it took the predominately the military machine of the USA rather than some international court, the UN, etc... to hold them accountable.

If the world was REALLY concerned about what was legal, right, and moral and what wasn't, they'd have done something long ago about the Taliban and other countries like them that harbor criminal thugs, dictators, etc....

But they don't. Why is that?

Tennessee Mike hit the nail square on the head that everyone got up in arms because we actually chose to do something about it.

The irony is not lost on me when you had more people bent out of shape about our response to the 9/11 attacks than the actual 9/11 attacks.

That tells me EXACTLY where the moral compass of the world is and why they have ABSOLUTELY no business dictating to the USA what is legal and what isn't.

That's where we are today, like it or not.

 

[TX Bill]

That's poppycock. The war in Iraq in particular has sparked a surge in fundamentalism across the middle-east and into Europe. We're talking about Bush and company creating the conditions whereby it is far easier to inculcate the young with radical ideas and ideals.

I find it staggering that you've not picked up on this. Or perhaps it really isn't true and yet one more example of the liberal-media making things up to make Bush and his cronies look bad?

Sorry Neb but you're all but saying that we really didn't have any issues with the peace loving radical Islamists until Bush got into office.

That my friend is the real poppycock. You know it. I know it. Any anyone reading this thread knows it.

 

[TX Bill]

Ah screw it....

We'll agree to disagree.

No need for us to get into a pissing match.

I think that the USA is the greatest country in the world and many on here think that we're the worst.

I think we'd agree that the reality is that we're somewhere in between.

No worries.

(Hope I didn't get too personal Neb, Chico, or any of the others.)