[churchillbuff]

When you catch somebody robbing your locked gun cabinet, whether he got in or not makes a huge difference in how you deal with him.

Please provide a translator, because I do not understand what you've written here. All I know is that the N Koreans are explictly, openly threatening to wage war on us. But Bush says it's OK to respond with containment. Fine - - then the same response makes sense with Iraq - if it doesn't, I'd like an explanation why, not a cryptic undecipherable comment such as above.

[guitfiddlist]

Let me spell it out for you. North Korea is a mad dog that has nukes. They can nuke Seoul in a flash if we invade.

Iraq is a mad dog trying to get to that level of blackmail. We are invading to make sure they don't get there. Gee, that wasn't too hard, was it?

[Spiff]

Please provide a translator, because I do not understand what you've written here. All I know is that the N Koreans are explictly, openly threatening to wage war on us. But Bush says it's OK to respond with containment. Fine - - then the same response makes sense with Iraq - if it doesn't, I'd like an explanation why, not a cryptic undecipherable comment such as above.

Just like the Saddam problem, the Korean problem is an unpaid bill given to us by the freakin' United Nations. We should have taken Saddam out in Gulf War I, but our mandate ended at the Baghdad city line. Bush I did not want to overstep our mandate, kicked the can down the road, Clinton kept kicking the can down the road, and now the bill is due.

We were limited by the United Nations in Korea and could not finish the job. An unnatural state has existed for nearly half a century, the can has been kicked down the road for that long. A pre-emptive strike will be in order - but all in good time.

We can only safely do so much right now. Sure, we could launch a two-front war but that would cost many more American lives and see many more defeats in some battles.

Korea is on the list - they are to be contained until it is time to deal with them. We've got to quickly finish off the Saddam business and the OBL business and deal with Korea when it is wise to do so. Of course, Korea might use this time while we are otherwise engaged in Iraq for an opportunistic attack. We can only hope they won't and that containment will work for the time being.

[Recovering_Democrat]

A humble suggestion from a Recovering_Democrat:FREEPERS:
IGNORE
CHURCHILLBUFF

Obviously an attempt to divide us and ignore the purpose of the thread: the press conference.

[ez]

All I know is that the N Koreans are explictly, openly threatening to wage war on us. But Bush says it's OK to respond with containment. Fine - - then the same response makes sense with Iraq

Please explain why the same response that makes sense with NK, also makes sense with Iraq. That is elementary school analysis.

Two different countries, in two different regions, with different weapons, and you say what works for one should work for the other. Don't bother trying to defend that simplistic thinking...you can't.

[snooker]

We'll punch out men-ta-li-il on the way home from Iraq.

Wanna bet that he has been told, lauch a nuke and NK glows green for 25,000 years. Here boomer, here boomer.

snooker

[Ingtar]

1. North Koreans are not all over the world in such large numbers, and willing to suicide to attack Israel or the Great Satan. They do not have a history of harboring and working with this ready made delivery vehicle.

2. North Korea did not surrender and promise to get rid of all of it's WMD over 12 years ago.

3. Who says that North Korea is not next. Hussein will not likely be the last leader to go down for supporting world terrorism.

4. North Korea attacked the South in a Civil War. They did not attack another country that was not even provoking them.

There are a few of the reasons that NK and Iraq are different.