quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantalus42

Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantalus42

Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tantalus42

Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dombill32

The cat is out of the bag in N. Korea.  There is no way at this point to create a situation where N. Korea would not possess nuclear weapons without a direct invasion, something we cant do with our military stretched to the breaking point already.  Unless of course the Bush administration decided to do this and reinstitute the draft.  To compound the problem of a potential invasion would be the risk of China coming into the war on the side of N. Korea and launching its own invasion of Taiwan. 

It will still be years before N. Korea could fire a nuclear missle that could hit the continental USA but until then and beyond there is the risk of N. Korea selling material and the technology to other rogue states or terrorists organizations (Iran had several people in N. Korea for the missle tests back in July).  A naval blockade (something being discussed) wouldnt be effective in stopping this movement of material and technology because you can sneak these kinds of things out of the country in a suitcase.

I dont think that there is much the US can do at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SkatDomina

i'm not the world's best on politics but can someone explain to me why other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we do?  i mean, how can we say 'you can't have them but we can' ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.

quote:

Europe realising that an invasion of Iran is unfeasible (successfully anyway), they advocate talks with Iran. Bush refuses to talk to Iran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Europe realising that an invasion of Iran is unfeasible (successfully anyway), they advocate talks with Iran. Bush refuses to talk to Iran.

Meat,
The invasion of Iraq was feasible and successful. The occupation and "peace" has been an abysmal failure.

I accept that but I don't see the point of a successful invasion if the peace can't be won, it all ends in failure and a waste of time money and blood. What has happened in Iraq is what Swartzkopf said would happen so the Bush administration were forwarned.

The local adversaries exploited that and realized it didn't need to fight a battle for territory it only needed to survive; knowing that the press would supply the ammunition necessary to polarize the US public. The war was won, the occupation and attempt at democracy is lost.

Isn't that war? A successful invasion and withdrawal without achieving ones aims is a war lost in my book. I think even Bush recognizes that which is why he won't withdraw and leave it to some other President down the road and then accusing that President of losing the war.

Amazing in this and the other Korean thread there is a call to action and arms in Korea by the same people who didn't feel an armed conflict in Iraq was appropriate. I have the same attitude as I have for the middle east in general. Let them kill themselves.

Invading Korea will probably achieve less than invading Iraq, it will be a tar pit and it's difficult to see China sitting back and watching a war on its doorstep.

Iran would welcome the opportunity to take on a disarmed Iraq. Let them.

And who disarmed them? Whichever way the wind blows the US won't be thanked.

In both cases the next target of the budding quest for world domination wouldn't be the US. Japan and Russia would have to be concerned about Korea and the EU would have to deal with Iran. Let them. Listening to the call for restraint and political dialog is what generated the perceived strength of Iran and Korea. Does the idea the Iran and Korea having a couple of low megaton nukes put the US in jeopardy? NO! However it does put at risk every country within 500 miles in range.

Nukes are defensive weapons, they are pointless when it comes to mounting an invasion. Everybody has seen what happened to a non-nuclear Iraq which is why everyone wants nukes. The US's mistake was not taking Israel to task for developing nukes, now the US has no moral high ground and is just seen as a bully. Just looking at the modern history of Iran, its not surprising they want nukes with all the interference they have had from Russia, Britain and the US. As for engaging with Iran, the Bush administration has refused to engage with them. One of Bush's aids with responsibilty for Iran admited on radio they other day he had never met an Iranian in his official capacity.

I don't support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, therefore I don't support the troops. I don't support the US patrolling to border between South and North Korea. Bring them all home and station them on our borders, including 10 Million land minds. Let that great institution, the UN, solve the outstanding issues. This time without the US in the lead.

Bush has never taken the lead on anything but Iraq where he has been proved wrong. He has refused to talk to Iran and Korea and the Palestinians, he has withdrawn from just about every international treaty of note and refuses to participate in international initiatives such as the ICC.

Lets just sit there like the rest pontificating about human rights and accomplishing nothing but wasting time while Korea and Iran grow stronger. We are far enough away to enjoy the beautiful sunsets that come in the afterglow of far away nuclear bombs exploding. Maybe when they beg us enough to again take an active role we'll consider it.

Iran and Korea aren't growing stronger but US withdrawal will make a resurgent Russia happy

I'm sure the response to this will be that the US, specifically President Bush, caused the problems so it's our responsibility to solve them. What a great way for the US to always be at fault. If the world is so tired of being forced to follow US dogma regarding democracy and freedom, let them have the opportunity to do better. No US intervention, and of course no US dollars. We'll supply the same lip service support until the action fails and then we'll offer the same head shake and Monday morning quarterbacking while saying; "I told you that wouldn't work".

I don't think the US has made all the problems and what problems there are, the blame should be shared with the rest of the west. As for Bush, well yes, he has proved clueless. He seems to think the only way to solve a problem is refusing to talk to his adversaries while accusing them of being evil through a megaphone and threatening to bomb them. While shooting first might be a way to deal with terrorists it is hardly a fruitful way of dealing with a country that isn't going to disappear overnight.