17 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by MerkSo what would you do Merk? If not negotiations then what? Let's look at our options.
The IAEA can only do as much as the NorKs will let them do.
The difference so far looks like this new deal requires the NorKs to give before they get and it looks to be done in smaller steps.
They are going to seal their reactor again. Big deal. They did that last time too. 🙄
Our military is currently bogged down in an occupation that has cost almost 500 Billion Dollars and there's no end in site.
We've got 100's of thousands of troops that are already on extended duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have a majority of American citizens that are sick of the war in Iraq and believe our political leadership has failed us there. So our nation is already "war weary".
It sounds like the North Koreans were fully aware of all of those issues and they used them to play us like a cheap fiddle. So what would you do? Bomb them? Start another war while we're already in the middle of a war we can't win?
17 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wibFirst, you have a crap arguement there. Military is not the only other option to this agreement.
So what would you do Merk? If not negotiations then what? Let's look at our options.
Our military is currently bogged down in an occupation that has cost almost 500 [b]Billion Dollars and there's no end in site.
We've got 100's of thousands of troops that are already on extended duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have a majority of American Bomb them? Start another war while we're already in the middle of a war we can't win?[/b]
Second, my response was to zeeb mentioning the inspection regime. I was stating how much I really thought the inspection regime can do if the NorKs don't want to deal with them. Hence, I mentioned the reactor. Last time, the inspectors got the boot and they unsealed the reactor.
Third, I did mention that this ageement looks like it requires the NorKs to make steps in return for aid. Which is a good approach. We shouldnt make the same mistake of giving them something for nothing. Also, it looks like China has signed on to this which is very important. No other country is as important to Kim as China. I have said before, China is the single key to North Korea.
If a fight is what you want, find someone else. If you want to complain about the Iraq war, do it in another thread. There are plenty of Copperheads on this board that will join in with you.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by MerkOk, so let's take Iraq off the table. That takes our military out of the negotiations also. That leaves the Bush admin with only one option, negotiating from a position that's equal.
First, you have a crap arguement there. Military is not the only other option to this agreement.
Second, my response was to zeeb mentioning the inspection regime. I was stating how much I really thought the inspection regime can do if the NorKs don't want to deal with them. Hence, I mentioned the reactor. Last time, the inspectors got the boot and they unse ...[text shortened]... it in another thread. There are plenty of Copperheads on this board that will join in with you.
The US did what we always do, and what usually works, we paid'em off. The Bush admin finally got one right imo.
Without our military (the big stick) that leaves the US with our only bargaining chip - money. That includes trade incentives, loans, aid, or whatever.
Your original argument made it sound as if the US had other options. I don't see any. And you still haven't offered any.
17 Feb 07
Originally posted by wibNot talking to them at all is an option. As is pulling our troops out of South Korea and letting them deal with it is also an option.
Ok, so let's take Iraq off the table. That takes our military out of the negotiations also. That leaves the Bush admin with only one option, negotiating from a position that's equal.
The US did what we always do, and what usually works, we paid'em off. The Bush admin finally got one right imo.
Without our military (the big stick) that leaves the US w ...[text shortened]... sound as if the US had other options. I don't see any. And you still haven't offered any.
What I'm saying is that what we know about the agreement so far isn't all that exciting. Forgive me for not hollering "peace in our time". Any ageement with North Korea will require China to make them live up to it. Time will tell if they do.
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by wib*2 wars
So what would you do Merk? If not negotiations then what? Let's look at our options.
Our military is currently bogged down in an occupation that has cost almost 500 [b]Billion Dollars and there's no end in site.
We've got 100's of thousands of troops that are already on extended duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have a majority of American ...[text shortened]... Bomb them? Start another war while we're already in the middle of a war we can't win?[/b]
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30With regards to your comment about them being "Commies", North Korea is not a true communist state, in fact it is arguable that no country has ever had true communism. The closest being Cuba.
damn commies...
as far as they're leader is concerned...
i'm thinking that another governmental assassination is the order of the day...
been a while since we've had one of those eh?
"i'm thinking that another governmental assassination is the order of the day..."
Ah but of course, assination is a great solution. Pitty you didn't use it when trying to get rid of sadam. You just cost the american tax payer hundred of billions of dollars funding a war which was for all the wrong reasons.
18 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkHmm. So...since we were at war with the Taliban, does that mean we were already at war with Hussein before we invaded since we were really at war with "terror"? Are we now at war with Iran? How about North Korea? If we invaded either of them, would it just be part of the same war? If so, they should be treating us now as enemies, no? As should any other power who the US doesn't like...we might just include them on the "War on Terror" and feel justified in invading without having to give any reason...
So do I. It's easier to single out Iraq and rail against it if you don't recognize it as part of the War in Terror.
Who exactly are we now at war with and who are we not at war with?
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by wibI guess by the logic that Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war, we'd just say North Korea is part of the same war. Then we don't have to start another war and it's all good!
So what would you do Merk? If not negotiations then what? Let's look at our options.
Our military is currently bogged down in an occupation that has cost almost 500 [b]Billion Dollars and there's no end in site.
We've got 100's of thousands of troops that are already on extended duty tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We have a majority of American ...[text shortened]... Bomb them? Start another war while we're already in the middle of a war we can't win?[/b]
18 Feb 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIraq and Afghanistan are different fronts in the same war. Same as Italy and Germany not being different wars. They were part of the same war.
I guess by the logic that Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war, we'd just say North Korea is part of the same war. Then we don't have to start another war and it's all good!
Iran would be a new front, not a new war.
Keep in mind that I am not reflexively anti war. We are different that way and will never see things alike. For example, I think Jackson was a sissy for letting the Indians get away.