Skip to comments.
U.S. saw North Korea's work to enrich fuel for nukes
The Washington Times ^
| October 18, 2002
| Bill Gertz
Posted on 10/21/2002 1:21:03 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:58:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
2
posted on
10/21/2002 1:23:18 PM PDT
by
backhoe
To: Tailgunner Joe
Colin Powell admitted on Fox News Sunday that North Korea already has 1-2 nukes and that 'we knew about this for some time' (paraphrase but preserving the meaning). If this is true, than, I'm sorry people, but all the current agitation re:Iraq's evil works is a bit stupid, if I may used the mildest possible term. As we all know, N Korea is developing its nukes specifically to deliver them to us and to Japan and they don't deny it. They also have some rather long range missiles, capable of doing the job. And, of course, they are evil, kill their own people, etc., etc.
The above being known then, can anyone, please, explain W's fixation with little, weak Iraq while the evil, murderous N Koreans are getting stronger and more dangerous (as in really dangerous) every day? Could it be that W plans to hit Iraq because... hitting Iraq seems to be easy while dealing with N Korea would be... not that easy?
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
You understate the situation. We can't deal with N. Korea for the same reason we coudn't 'deal' with the Soviet Union, and why we can't 'deal' with Communist China. Are you willing to trade Los Angeles for Pyongyang? Even I don't hate the Left Coast that much. The whole point of whacking Saddam now is because he doesn't have nukes
yet.As for as Korea, all I can say is, support Anti-Ballistic Missle Defense.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
fyi
To: Tailgunner Joe
Right but, given the context you describe, Iraq doesn't really matter or, in the immortal words of Ms. Dowd:
"But why are we going after a lunatic in Iraq for planning to make a bomb and not a lunatic in North Korea who already has bombs?" the Boy asked.
"At the end of the day," Perle replied, his voice dripping with patience for his student, "Iraq is an easy kill."
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
Kim Jong Il has nukes. Do you want Saddam to have nukes too?
To: Tailgunner Joe
Well then... who's the dangerous one?
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
They are both dangerous, but Saddam is more dangerous right now because he is cornered and has no bargaining chips. He knows the hammer is about to fall.
The Koreans have admitted their nuclear program because MAD doesn't work unless we know they have nukes. They're hoping it will save their asses.
To: Tailgunner Joe
When you write 'he is cornered' you mean he was cornered. I agree, if I was 'evil Saddam' and noticed that I had no escape whatsoever I would probably try to exit the stage with a big bang. I could mess up my entire oil extraction capability for starters (see Kuwait) and maybe try to blow up as much oil-related stuff as possible in Kuwait and Saudi too. Then, load all the uranium and whatever radioactive stuff I got and dump it in Israel and maybe Qatar, if it's where our boys happen to be. Of course, explode every single nuke I had, if I had any.
Now, if he doesn't have the goods, the only reason we would blow up Iraq would be... because we can. But that would teach the N Koreans and others that, if you get these goodies, you better use them our you'll lose them and you may even die. It is also teaching everyone that being Uncle Sam's SOB, like Saddam was to some extent pre-Kuwait, buys you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And, if you don't want to exit the stage Noriega style, you do what you must do.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
The last 2-3 sentences would be the lesson the dictator in Paki would learn. Our puppet in Egypt and those in the little Gulf states too.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
We will remove Saddam because he is our enemy. It's regime change for our enemies who don't have nukes, and containment for our enemies who do have them. What about this don't you understand?
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
But that would teach the N Koreans and others that, if you get these goodies, you better use them our you'll lose them and you may even die.No, it wouldn't, because Saddam doesn't have nukes.
It is also teaching everyone that being Uncle Sam's SOB, like Saddam was to some extent pre-Kuwait, buys you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
No it teaches them: "If you want to live, don't get on our bad side."
To: Tailgunner Joe
It doesn't look like good vs. evil. It's more like bully vs. the evil crippled dwarf while bully carefully stays away from any other bully-like creature and any crippled dwarf too for as long as he is suspected of bullyism, evil or not.
Not inspiring at all. Quite sick, actually and quite far from that 'we will pay any price' to secure freedom for mankind declaration of old.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
But that would teach the N Koreans and others that, if you get these goodies, you better use them our you'll lose them and you may even die. You'll die either way. If you have them, your country will be destroyed if you use them. If you're an outlaw, and you try to get them, YOU'LL be destroyed.
It's ironic: a country which actually acquires a nuclear weapon knows that, if it's ever used, that's the last thing it will ever do.
15
posted on
10/21/2002 2:26:15 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
I thought Jimmah had this all cleaned up in 1993.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
If Saddam is a crippled dwarf, what is Usama?
Haven't we learned no threat against the US is too small?
You're either with us ,or you're with the terrorists. This isn't a platitude. It's a statement of fact. We are going to destroy terrorists, and any regime which supports them.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Jimmah? Who's Jimmah? 1993 - it was Clinton's first year...
To: Tailgunner Joe
This is not my line of argument. My point is that Saddam is VERY far from being a real threat to us. At the same time, there are SEVERAL real threats from some VERY OLD enemyes namely: China, North Korea. Unlike Saddam's Iraq, China and N Korea see themselves as being at war with us and act accordingly. They are more of a danger to us every day.
Us ignoring our real enemies and going after some insignificant dictator is a waste of resources and dangerous in more than one way.
Usama is probably dead but the Al Queda threat will last for as long as everyone believes that the little conflict between Israel and their Arab neighbors is such a big thing that it can not be allowed to solve itself. The conflict would be resolved when we allow Israel and the Arabs to fight until they get tired of fighting and make the kind of piece where there is a winner and a loser. There will be no need for Al Quaeda when that is accomplished.
To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
There was a story (and I seem to recall) Jimmy Carter going off to NK on his own to "negotiate" peace, just as the Clintons were considering a preemptive strike.
Since Jimmylips had everything under control in the northern far east, Bubba went back to doing when he knew how to best...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson