"declaration of war"

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually, I'm going to have to say, it is being attacked. There are currently ongoing attacks in the no-fly zone with aircraft. Lot's of innocents suffering. Then there will be an attack soon, and there is the political attack.

Even if it was not being attacked, which it is, it changes nothing about the logic of this conversation!<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm...yeah I'll agree with you there. It's certainly being politically pressured and put on the defensive. Same militarily as well.

I assume you are speaking about sanctions as far as the "Lot's of innocents suffering"...so I will agree with that too.

OOPPS!

I just realized we are shifting to Iraq here! Wrong thread wrong thread!

[bn880 5]

And so, Akira, you just pulled off a move that Avon likes to do, take a logical discussion of the rails and see if the troublesome points can be forgotten.

EDIT: It is part of a comparison of the two situations. You can't avoid some things.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,17:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And so, Akira, you just pulled off a move that Avon likes to do, take a logical discussion of the rails and see if the troublesome points can be forgotten.

EDIT: It is part of a comparison of the two situations. You can't avoid some things.<span id='postcolor'>

How so?

What "troublesome points"?

And I accept there are undeniable comparisons between the two. But there is the baghdad thread and this thread. If there is something in relation to N. Korea that can be said about Iraq then by all means.

But we started in on an Iraq only discussion and there is no reason that can't be put in the Baghdad thread. I'm not avoiding anything. I'm trying to prevent what happened to the original Iraq thread where it got thrown off the rails big time.

[bn880 5]

Troublesome points... OKay, let me repost then, fixing what has to be fixed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets get a few things straight.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Hasn't attacked anyone (since 1950s).

Iraq-History of causing regional instability, and attacking neighbors.

<span id='postcolor'>

Therefore Iraq is being attacked because it attacked 12 years ago? Instability? Haha, for the U.S. maybe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Came out straight and said "We have WMDs".

Iraq-History of concealing WMD production, and lying about stockpiles and arms.<span id='postcolor'> If NK came out straight, than Iraq is now so straight that I can't see it anymore. There are inspection teams on the ground and nothing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Never used WMDs.

Iraq-History of using WMDs against enemies and own citizens.<span id='postcolor'> Then Iraq is being attacked, and will be devastated for what it did 12 years ago?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N. Korea and Iraq are completely different diplomatic situations.<span id='postcolor'> That is, NK will not attack Israel, and NK is farther from the oil.

[Akira 0]

Aside from the retraction of the Iraq is not being attacked...all my answers stand to these "troublesome" points. To recap:

1-It is the continued history of what Saddam has done that is leading to his ousting.

2-You see it as Iraq being "straight". Everyone else including Blix say there are gaps and troubling questions, even if there isn't a "smoking gun."

3-The US recieves more oil from non-Opec sources. Venezuela is a larger supplier of oil than the Mid East. Yet we don't attack them for their oil even though the recent strike is stranglin' production. Why?

I closed with If Bush and Cheney came from the computing industry, they would be yelling we want their sand for silicon.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aside from the retraction of the Iraq is not being attacked...all my answers stand to these "troublesome" points. To recap:

1-It is the continued history of what Saddam has done that is leading to his ousting.

2-You see it as Iraq being "straight". Everyone else including Blix say there are gaps and troubling questions, even if there isn't a "smoking gun."

3-The US recieves more oil from non-Opec sources. Venezuela is a larger supplier of oil than the Mid East. Yet we don't attack them for their oil even though the recent strike is stranglin' production. Why?

I closed with If Bush and Cheney came from the computing industry, they would be yelling we want their sand for silicon.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, so basically you are not disputing that the attack is for the past not the present. And that there is currently no evidence of any wrong doing on part of Iraq.

EDIT: Alright, so then, it is time that the U.S. stand up to NK isn't it? It is currently a much greater threat,but wait, no, something is in the way, U.S. doesn't care about attacking NK.

[bn880 5]

Okay, you kind of tried to address the issues but they were hidden under a cloud of dismissal "Iraq isn't being "attacked." It's being threatened with force but lets remember, no one has fired a shot yet." so I did not read the rest of it. If you dismiss my arguments in the first sentence like that, I'm going to resolve that first and then look for your answers. That should resolve the confusion.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aside from the retraction of the Iraq is not being attacked...all my answers stand to these "troublesome" points. To recap:

1-It is the continued history of what Saddam has done that is leading to his ousting.

2-You see it as Iraq being "straight". Everyone else including Blix say there are gaps and troubling questions, even if there isn't a "smoking gun."

3-The US recieves more oil from non-Opec sources. Venezuela is a larger supplier of oil than the Mid East. Yet we don't attack them for their oil even though the recent strike is stranglin' production. Why?

I closed with If Bush and Cheney came from the computing industry, they would be yelling we want their sand for silicon.<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, so basically you are not disputing that the attack is for the past not the present. And that there is currently no evidence of any wrong doing on part of Iraq.

EDIT: Alright, so then, it is time that the U.S. stand up to NK isn't it? It is currently a much greater threat,but wait, no, something is in the way, U.S. doesn't care about attacking NK.<span id='postcolor'>

I would say he is being ousted for what history has shown in the past as well as an eye to the future. The present is to be decided by the UN.

Not quite sure what you mean by "stand up" to N. Korea. I assume militarily. I've already responded in length why that won't happen. But the US is standing up to N. Korea. Diplomatically.

[bn880 5]

Something I just noticed, re-reading your point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1-It is the continued history of what Saddam has done that is leading to his ousting.<span id='postcolor'>

We are discussin Iraq, because that's what an attack affects, not just Saddam.

And that bolded word should be removed from your sentence. At the present, there is no issue with Saddam, he complied.

This would be ok:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1-It is the history of what Iraq has done that is leading to a destruction of it.<span id='postcolor'>

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,18:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, you kind of tried to address the issues but they were hidden under a cloud of dismissal "Iraq isn't being "attacked." It's being threatened with force but lets remember, no one has fired a shot yet." so I did not read the rest of it. If you dismiss my arguments in the first sentence like that, I'm going to resolve that first and then look for your answers. That should resolve the confusion.<span id='postcolor'>

Ah ok.

Well that is cleared up.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite sure what you mean by "stand up" to N. Korea. I assume militarily. I've already responded in length why that won't happen. But the US is standing up to N. Korea. Diplomatically.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes military, and I just proved to you the inconsistency between why the U.S. is going to destroy Iraq and not N.K. It is not based logically on what is coming out of Bush's mouth. There is a big fat lie behind the whole issue. You decide what for, frankly I don't care, I know that justice is presently on Iraqs side.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something I just noticed, re-reading your point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1-It is the continued history of what Saddam has done that is leading to his ousting.<span id='postcolor'>

We are discussin Iraq, because that's what an attack affects, not just Saddam.

And that bolded word should be removed from your sentence. At the present, there is no issue with Saddam, he complied.

This would be ok:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1-It is the history of what Iraq has done that is leading to a destruction of it.<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

I differntiate between Saddam and Iraq. I don't think Iraq has done wrong. I think Saddam has done wrong. Undoubtedly Iraq as a whole though will be effected by invasion, and that is why I wish there was a way to get him out and keep Iraq untouched.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite sure what you mean by "stand up" to N. Korea. I assume militarily. I've already responded in length why that won't happen. But the US is standing up to N. Korea. Diplomatically.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes military, and I just proved to you the inconsistency between why the U.S. is going to destroy Iraq and not N.K. It is not based logically on what is coming out of Bush's mouth. There is a big fat lie behind the whole issue. You decide what for, frankly I don't care, I know that justice is presently on Iraqs side. <span id='postcolor'>

There is no inconsistency.

Foriegn policy is not an absolute. To go around treating every country the same is more dangerous then taking them on country by country basis. Situations are always different, as are politics, regional stability, and relations with the countries involved.

There is no "inconsistency" only normal non cookie-cutter policy. To say every country should be the same is ludicrous.

But I already stated all this before.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite sure what you mean by "stand up" to N. Korea. I assume militarily. I've already responded in length why that won't happen. But the US is standing up to N. Korea. Diplomatically.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes military, and I just proved to you the inconsistency between why the U.S. is going to destroy Iraq and not N.K. It is not based logically on what is coming out of Bush's mouth. There is a big fat lie behind the whole issue. You decide what for, frankly I don't care, I know that justice is presently on Iraqs side. <span id='postcolor'>

There is no inconsistency.

Foriegn policy is not an absolute. To go around treating every country the same is more dangerous then taking them on country by country basis. Situations are always different, as are politics, regional stability, and relations with the countries involved.

There is no "inconsistency" only normal non cookie-cutter policy. To say every country should be the same is ludicrous.

But I already stated all this before.<span id='postcolor'>

Basically what you are saying is that there can be no logical approach, because no important issues from one situation to the next can be compared. Diplomacy is complicated, but certain laws/rules and logical decisions are made in such important matters as war.

It is interesting that you wish that Saddam could be removed another way, yet you are fine with proceeding with the U.S. invasion plan. In actual reality Saddam is not the problem anymore, he has the support of his people, I saw it on CNN.

What is Saddam doing now that is so bad? What is N. Korea doing? A hell of a lot worse towards the U.S.

[Akira 0]

I'm saying there can be a logical, overlaying standard. But that regional and political realities take precedent over formulating one policy that says "If A happens, we will treat all countries like B".

You are right that I wish Saddam can be taken out some other way. But I am only fine with an invasion if the UN okay's it. If the UN decides that it is necessary, then I will support it. Not a unilateral invasion...that would be disasterous.

N. Korea has been a pain in the ass, yes. But threat-wise, I would rank Iraq much higher. N. Korea has threatened before but has never backed up actions. Its usually a diplomatic ploy for something. Sometimes I think Pyongnang (sp) gets really bored and decides to stir up trouble.

EDIT: Back in a few lunch time and I am starving.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You are right that I wish Saddam can be taken out some other way. But I am only fine with an invasion if the UN okay's it. If the UN decides that it is necessary, then I will support it. Not a unilateral invasion...that would be disasterous.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah well, if the U.N. sees it necessary I don't see how it can be argued against, it will be "the world decision" sort of speak. That's exactly what may happen, and it does not mean it will be just.

EDIT: I think there is no more for us to discuss at the moment, between us we understand logic as two completely different things, so neither of us will be convinced of the others point.

[Akira 0]

How Dangerous Is N. Korea?

An interesting article that has a little bit for both sides of the debate.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 09 2003,23:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes military, and I just proved to you the inconsistency between why the U.S. is going to destroy Iraq and not N.K.  It is not based logically on what is coming out of Bush's mouth.  There is a big fat lie behind the whole issue.  You decide what for, frankly I don't care, I know that justice is presently on Iraqs side.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand why people are comparing NK and Iraq. They're two completely different situations.

Iraq - has a history of using WMDs on civilian populations.

NK - Doesn't.

Iraq - has a history of attacks with no warning.

NK - has a history of warnings with no attack.

They're pretty dissimilar.

But then again, NK is much closer to obtaining WMDs than Iraq is, or so we think. So they should be higher priority, if anyone's taking them seriously that is.

[Blake 0]

Stakes just got higher:

'North Korea says it is withdrawing immediately from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2644593.stm

However:

'North Korea last withdrew from the NPT in 1993, provoking a dangerous confrontation with the United States. It later suspended the decision and entered talks. '

[ralphwiggum 6]

adding to that news

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The official Korean Central News Agency said that, although Pyongyang was pulling out of the NPT, it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons. <span id='postcolor'>

who knows? they lie as much as i get killed in MP games. oops..Freudian slip...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">North Korea also recently announced it was ready to hold talks with the South Korean Government. <span id='postcolor'>

funny. they want non attack treaty with US, now they are talking with SK. man, they are so out of it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But a North Korean diplomat in Beijing said Pyongyang would "reconsider" its withdrawal from the NPT if the US resumed shipments of fuel oil. <span id='postcolor'>

but here is what they want

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think US has plenty of supporters at the Gulf already and the cold breeze with US-Saudi relations will be only temporary and already showing things of warming up. It was just that Saudi's showed impotence in controlling their homn-grown fundamentalist terrorism that had US on it's toes. Also many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But Saudi-Arabia has shown signs of falling in line again. I don't believe Iraq will become a limp puppet in US hands IF Saddam is removed with force - they will probably just elect new government which is pro-west but no way it will be as controllable as current Afgan regime. Kurds might get some sort of autonomy (which is de-facto already) but doubt situation in post-war Iraq will be as chaotic as in Afganistan which is mostly a tribe-controlled country.

Most of us know Saddam's sinister history, including his Arab neighbors and gladly would like to see him go even though they don't approve forceful methods. In this conflict anyway oil has much lesser importance than in the previous one altough it is a factor of course - it's more about politics this time. What comes to Georgia, of course US now has a nice strategic base considering the Caucasus oil reserves, but I think oil is a bit overrated motive issue on many occasions.

Having reasonably capable US-equipped and trained Georgian Army is better than having a power vacuum which potential terrorists could exploit.<span id='postcolor'>

Interestingly I just read from the Time-magazine that US has made plans to strike and destroy the nuclear weapon manufacturing sites in North Korea, but the plans were deemed unexecutable, because destroying the sites might contaminate the Korean peninsula and parts of China. So there is another proof for my statement: "Get nuclear weapons and external armed intervention is prevented."

I guess that our opinions on post-war Iraq just differ then, since I cannot possibly see any other outcome than a puppet regime installed by US. Now don't get me wrong, of course all efforts will be made to make the new government LOOK democratic and legitimate, but behind the scenes it will be US pulling the strings. Why else would they spend enormous amounts of dollars to oust a pesky old dictator?

I am with you when you say that Saddam is a bad ruler and that he has to go. But I do not agree with the methods. Saddam has a conscription army and so what a war will mostly do is kill innocent conscripts. A lot of families will have fathers no more. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because I have been to a conscription army and I know they do not ask you whether you want to defend your country or not. They'll just draft you and throw you into the meat grinder.

Saddam is an old bastard and he'll die of old age eventually.

Hhmh. Letting Russia be the sole controlling pivot of the Caucasian oil reserves is far worse than some pesky terrorists.

[Blake 0]

Simply the death of Saddam may not change everything - he must already have plans for a successor. NK did not change much after Kim Il-Sung's death, his son simply emerged to power continuing his fathers policies. And mostly, in quite unpredictable ways. The Saddam-cult and worshipping in Iraq may not simply vanish after his death by natural causes or assasination, it might even reinforce it if his successor continues with the same lines. A regime change should be much wider process than extermination/toppling of one single indivudual, if that is being planned.

Iraq's conscription army, based on previous Gulf War experience, are at least very prone to surrender in masses.

Anyway, many will die but I'd also expect mass surrenders rather than fighting to the last.

Not all of them are conscripts/reservists, especially officers and members of his Republican Guard. They don't deserve to die anymore than conscripts but will probably fight harder because they consider themselves elite and are more loyal to Saddam. Ordinary conscripts (as which I also served years back in a different army) have no llusions of Iraqi armed forces capabilities nor they share much desire to die for Saddam's regime - they are the ones probably surrendering before hard fighting even begins.

[ralphwiggum 6]

wrong thread guys... it's about NK here.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 10 2003,08:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq's conscription army, based on previous Gulf War experience, are at least very prone to surrender in masses.

Anyway, many will die but I'd also expect mass surrenders rather than fighting to the last.

Not all of them are conscripts/reservists, especially officers and members of his Republican Guard. They don't deserve to die anymore than conscripts but will probably fight harder because they consider themselves elite and are more loyal to Saddam. Ordinary conscripts (as which I also served years back in a different army) have no llusions of Iraqi armed forces capabilities nor they share much desire to die for Saddam's regime - they are the ones probably surrendering before hard fighting even begins.<span id='postcolor'>

Somehow I have a feeling that you served in the same army as I did.

Anyway, the officers of the conscript troops are probably quite loyal to Saddam, since the officers are usually the ones with the greatest "ideals". They are also very likely to motivate their men with random executions.

Bush and Saddam are playing their games and innocent people get hurt. Kill one and you're a murderer, who will be executed in US and in Iraq, but kill thousands and you're a GREAT PRESIDENT.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 10 2003,08:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wrong thread guys... it's about NK here.<span id='postcolor'>

Oops. We kind of drifted...