Mr. President You Truly Scare Me

[North Pack]

NK isn't going to hit Hawaii - the missile won't go that far, several hundred miles short. That kind of bs usually backfires or fizzles out. The chance of the U.S. and Russia or China "going at it" on their own are actually quite low. Everyone has too much to loose. ... That's where the fruitcakes of the world enter - and they don't need huge armies to cause some very serious problems. Hitler certainly didn't start out with much of anything, - but look what he did, - and ALL because no one stood up to him. ...
.
Would I support BO if he sent U.S. troops into NK? That simply isn't going to happen. Personally I don't think it's our job to instill democracy on any country, including Iraq, China or wherever. Now, if NK invaded SK again, - it's my view that fruitcake running NK HAS to be killed, by us if necessary - but preferably by one of his own or SK.  

[geiger]

maybe not this missile, but the new and improved version might. that's beside the point if it will hit or not. fact is that NK has nuclear weapons and soon to have ways of transporting them (ballistic missiles). sadam had nothing at the time of the invasion. i remember vividly watching on TV the start of the Iraqi war, when sadam launched missiles on US and British encampments but none contained poisons/nuclear warheads/bacteria...actually alot of them didn't even explode, makes me think if they were even loaded with a warhead.

i hardly doubt Russia or China would go through the trouble of defending NK considering how much trade they have. russia and china did nothing when iraq was attacked, despite the place having the biggest oil reserves on the planet. one would think that iraq is way more worth than some muddy, barren NK.  
actually the only reason China would be against a NK war is the close proximity to it's land. but like usual a buffer zone would be established that would suit both nations.

hitler didn't start with much yes...he started becoming a threat when he began to annex Austria, Czechoslovakia, that was after 1935. at that time he was already quite strong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_top7_def_expd_1930-38.png
you have to remember that back then people didn't look at hitler as a monster as we do today. yes he discriminated against jews and such, but you have to remember that at the time much of the world wasn't that civilized either (US had black segregation, France/UK weren't to polite in their colonies either), basically it wasn't that obvious what a man he is going to become.

so you're against the Iraq war? you always were?

personally i'm tempted to see that idiot Kim Long dong il thrown to the dogs for what he did, but as you i'd like to see SK do it.

[North Pack]

No - I was never against the war per se, but taking out dangerous people is another matter. Sadam was dangerous, and if "something" happened to him and one of his Looney Tune sons ever took over, - all bets are off. There was absolutely going to be VERY serious problems. ... Neither you or I really know what China or Russia would actually do, - pure speculation. However, in the long run ALL countries do what they believe is in their own best interests, so-called friendships mean nothing.
.
New and improved missile by NK, - gonna happen, absolutely. You're making my point for me, - that sort of thing HAS to be headed off, or history will repeat.

[geiger]

if the sons took over. well yeah, that's also quite a bit of speculation. you do have a point, but the same logic could be applied to any lunatic in the world.
given the data iraq was no threat, what if it would...well what if russia reverted back to a dictatorship and nuked everyone's a**. you're talking about a preemptive strike, which is a controversial topic by itself. actually NK was being a pain in the a** through most of the 90' and somehow Iraq ended up first on the list.
and if you remember the start of the war in Iraq...how many tanks did we see? how much resistance there was? soldiers surrendered in thousands. even if one of his sons would get in power he wouldn't have the ability to do anything for a long time.

it's speculation yes, but the data presents quite a strong point if you ask me.

NK is by all means considered a threat now, not sometime in the future in some speculative scenario. also it wasn't dealt with before being able to make a functional nuclear bomb.
i see no reason why you don't push for war with NK if you agreed with Iraq.

as for the big ones going to war...let's see...nobody did anything about Chechnya, Kosovo, Serbia (close ally of Russia), Afganistan, Iraq, Georgia. yes, part of them weren't proper wars. sure friendship means nothing to them...but trillions of dollars trough trade do.

however i do agree that less lunatics in the world the better...just don't do it like Iraq, cause that caused even more lunatics to gain influence.

[North Pack]

No one I know prefers war, - but taking out a dangerous leader is another matter. I'm NOT talking about a preemptive strike on NK (you were with BO freeing them) rather an assassination.  The Kosovo's of the world are VERY unlikely to spill into something much larger, they're simply not worth it. The middle east with Israel and oil is entirely different. You seem to be hung up on how big was the army, how many tanks etc. - that's NOT the issue. It's what that fool could do to Israel or impact the world oil supply which would escalate this into a much larger problem. You're comparing apples to oranges and then wondering why they aren't the same.  ...

[geiger]

now we're getting somewhere...so it was a war for oil security? and israel of course...not that it cannot defend itself with a far superior army.

when we move from freeing the people and removing an evil dictator to issues about oil supply...that's a whole different game. obviously when Saddam was a buddy of the US and the oil kept flowing they didn't really have any problems. when he began closing the pipe, things got interesting.

november 2000...Saddam switches to Euros
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

you see...it all comes down to this. Saddam wasn't really a threat to anyone, not in the military sense at least. but he did hit us where it hurts...on our gas prices. which is actually our own fault for relying so much on foreign resources.

is that a cause for war? american imperialism? you decide. keep in mind that 4300 US soldiers dies plus some 3 million civilians and the gas is still not cheap. and considering we'll lose all influence once iraq is left to the islamic extremists (something that almost both sides can agree about)...i don't see any decrease of oil prices.


edit: as for NK leader assassination...how would that be done?

[North Pack]

"Getting somewhere? You're sounding like the leftie you are. Some kind of stability in the mid-east is vital, - and always has been.You do understand that - right? Sadam became a threat to that stability. If you remember right he moved in on Kuwait - you do recall that - right? The ONLY reason he wasn't taken out then is because we listened to the U.N. - and simply drove him out of Kuwait. He should have been eliminated at that point, - but another "Peace In Our Times" approach was used, - with predictable results. With WMD the threat is higher, - one that has to be dealt with. I already posted a link for you showing how many Dem Congressman in this country thought/believed he had them. Sadam was in the cats seat with U.N. inspectors in Iraq, - but his ego couldn't handle it. ... You over estimate Israel, - it's VERY small and can't retreat, it hasn't anywhere to go. A real military attack on them could easily escalate into nuclear - they'd have no option if defeat looked even close. It's not as simple as you folks love to believe. ... NK assination?? I have no doubt SK has a number of folks (agents if you like) in the north, - just as NK does in the south.

[geiger]

leftie? wait...don't go calling out names just like that. since i'm not even a leftie and besides...being a "righty" doesn't really mean anything better.

yes...vital for what? obviously it's the oil there and partially our friends the Israeli.

The war ended in stalemate in 1988, largely due to American and Western support for Iraq. This was part of the US policy of "dual containment" of Iraq and Iran. Between half a million and 1.5 million people from both sides died in the 1980-88 war.[30]

In 1977, the Iraqi government ordered the construction of Osirak (also spelled Osiraq) at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, 18 km (11 miles) south-east of Baghdad. It was a 40 MW light-water nuclear materials testing reactor (MTR). In 1981, Israeli aircraft bombed the facility, in order to prevent the country from using the reactor for creation of nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

israel actually prevented iraq way back in 1981. from then israel just got stronger and iraq got weaker.
i've already replied to the democrats WMD response.

large parts of africa are in flames...and what do we do? nothing really...except for the parts that have valuable resources to be extracted.



i'm going to bed now...so i won't reply anytime soon. i'd just like to mention that no hard feeling were meant at least from my part, despite being "the leftie i am" or as "the folk" i'm supposedly from.
we can continue the debate later if you want, i think it's quite interesting really.

[North Pack]

The stability is VERY vital to that whole region, - especially the oil exporters. Saudi Arabia comes to mind as one, - it costs them about $40.00-$42.00 a barrel to run their country at today's spending. No country in the region came to Iraq's aid, but we were able to put bases in the region to attack them, - there's a message there. Yes, we supported Iraq at one point, so what? Things change, politics, finance, weather, personal lives, - big deal, what we did a generation ago doesn't mean it has to go on for eternity. No country operates like that. Glad to here you're "not one of them", ...

[geiger]

of course it is vital to the region, but for maintaining a stable oil supply. not because saddam would nuke someone.
ok, let's not focus on the connections into the past...though the same people were involved (Rumsfeld, Bush senior,...). i agree it's not that important, but it's sill worth to keep it in mind.

you see...ironically i'd probably feel more supportive of iraq if bush came clean with the real intent at the start. to secure oil reserves. but he had to lie to the US and everyone else so he can start a war. but he'd be still guilty of being totally incompetent to stabilize iraq.

warning...a bit off topic:
('ve seen footage of real US soldiers complaining about the poor tactics and management of the war. actually iraq is unjustly costing US taxpayers too much. i've seen, heard an read reports about how the private organizations that supposed to reconstruct iraq were literally ordering stuff there only to have it quickly dumped away or burned, so they can order some more...guess where all the fees and profit margins went? not to the iraqis nor the US soldiers. i watched a documentary where a dump manager was interviewed right there on the field, but after the documentary aired he got honorably discharged.
and that's just one piece of the big failed mosaic that iraq is.
as you remember...when US invaded Iraqis greeted them, but being jobless and insecure quickly cut happiness to an abrupt end. i guess it's the fault of the oil strategy implemented for the invasion that lead to the discontent of Iraqis. of course we shouldn't dismiss the sectarian tensions between Shina and Sunnis. it's actually a culmination of both)


returning to the main point...the so called lefties accuse the US of being imperialistic. is that wrong or right. it depends from person to person. although i think this comparison wouldn't be that off...drivers of big SUV and large consumers would welcome new oil supply. Prius drivers might look at things differently.
my opinion...the more you're reliant on others (lunatics as it is the norm with oil) the more you're likely to get s*****d.

[North Pack]

This thread is already far too long - it's been a pleasure but no more.

[geiger]

yeah i agree...we're also running out of subjects to talk about.

pleasure same here :)  
it was just an online debate, so i hope there aren't any grudges after it.

[chrisremair77]

You know being young compared to all of the rest is truly a daunting thing to face. I feel intimidated as I am scared at being shot down but there are some things that I do not agree with.
As I came on this section, I was extremely surprised at the different sides of people here. I was surprised to find out that most here are what I would consider extreme conservatives. I see nothing wrong with that and I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I have not seen the youth majority post in this section and I can understand why.

Today's society teaches us to be fair to everyone and that is what I was taught to believe.

Gene_SC - 6/9/2009  7:14 PM

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
I think that different doesn't always mean bad does it? Sometimes radical change is needed just like FDR has done in the past. We may not agree with what Obama does but why not give him a chance? It hasn't even been a year.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

So did FDR, one of our greatest presidents.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
It doesn't hurt to invest in new and more efficient technology. Don't we need to stop our dependence on foreign oil? (As Warren Buffet said)

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

I think that statement is really subjective.

Once again, this is just my interpretation of the statements said above.