US had no intention to invade NK or seek regime change

US had no intention to invade NK or seek regime change

North Korea nuclear crisis talks closed on Friday with what the six nations had predicted to be the best possible outcome - agreement to meet again - but that didn�t stop Pyongyang from taking a parting swipe at the United States.

Frustrations had bubbled to the surface during the three days of meetings at a secluded state guesthouse in Beijing amid signs the world�s most reclusive communist state had told its US foes it would prove its nuclear credentials by carrying out a test. The only concrete result came when host China said all six countries - the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, the United States and China - were in agreement to work toward a Korean peninsula free of nuclear arms and would meet again within two months.

but i'm sure someone will say its all BS ands america is try to own the world.....right?? of course, standard procedure here on ATS.

Hrmmm....

Bush made sure to list NK on the axis of evil, Rumsfeld has numerously stated that they have drawn up plans for pre-emptive strikes, etc, etc, why do you choose to believe what they say now?

Take out the threat? Yes
Take over the country? What the hell for?

Yeah.. what was it that i was supposed to say? bs! and US is trying to own the world!.. Ok, now i have done it are you happy? But seriously, There cant be a war in Korea if Russia and China want one there, and back to Iraq you must admit that "Iraqi Freedom" was and is totally about oil or about Bush family "saving faces" as daddy left the Iraq bussines half way done..

Yea, and what the US has done and is now doing in Iraq is eliminating a threat...I'll roll my eyes now.

The US would never attack North Korea because they're fully aware they would get their asses handed to them.

Millions of soldiers in the North Korean army, tons of high tech gadgets, and Air Force (gasp!), and a wacko head of state.

And besides, they're not a Third World country, that's the US's bread and butter when it comes to wars of aggression. Why fight if you're not 100% positive you will win is their attitude.

They can rest easy, there are far more easier targets.

How many high-school bullies do you know that picked on the "tough" guy? It was always the pocket-protector, bandaid-on-the-glasses nerds who they push around.


Jakomo

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Yeah.. what was it that i was supposed to say? bs! and US is trying to own the world!.. Ok, now i have done it are you happy?

But seriously, There cant be a war in Korea if Russia and China want one there, and back to Iraq you must admit that "Iraqi Freedom" was and is totally about oil or about Bush family "saving faces" as daddy left the Iraq bussines half way done..

look this thread isnt about iraq. want to discuss iraq? then do it in a thread about iraq! jeez...i wasnt aware i had to explain this to you.

here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

go to this thread....it has some links i provided about a certain country named russia that was getting oil from a certain country named iraq and how these two countries have been quite some business with each other including oil sales despite UN sanctions....

there are also other links there showing how germany and even france had business dealings with france and were making money with them in one wayor another....

please spare me the america attacked them for oil crap. i could say russia france and germany wanted us to twiddle our thumbs while they made cash hand over fist in business dealings including the selling of oil to russia. so far america hasnt taken one drop of oil. and i'm not surprised certain other countries want to lift sanctions really fast, because they want the oil flowing again in their direction. its the only reason why certain other countries want to get involved NOW. they opposed this because it dirupted THEIR business dealings, it had nothing to do with innocent iraqis or an unjust war, it was about making money with saddam. plain and simple.

See now that raises another issue:

Why did we go to war with Iraq when Iraq claims they had no nuclear weapons and yet we are not able to find any?

Now why aren't we going to war with North Korea when they claim to the world they have and will use Nuclear Weapons?

Didn't Bush say that was the reason we were going to war with Iraq? Yet where are the WMD's? They are clearly in the hands of North Korea. That's for sure. I'm a little puzzled by all of this.

Yea, Russia and a lot of other countries did oppose this because of money, but where's the evidence ( that wasn't made up ) that Iraq was even a threat? Oh yea, all those weapons of mass destruction they haven't found...that we funded them?

All this is setting up a stage, and NK is definitely apart of it. Do you think that the current admin America will just look at NK's atomic bomb test and think nothing of it? Ha! It'll be a wake call to everyone on Earth. NK has nukes and WILL use them.

And don't think America won't use 'em either..or Russia, China, India, Britain, etc etc etc!!!

PrankMonkey: "please spare me the america attacked them for oil crap."

Sorry, couldn't resist:

villagenews.weblogger.com...$8684

"U. S. May Tap Oil for Iraqi Loans"

Warren Vieth The Los Angeles Times

Friday 11 July 2003

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering a provocative idea to pledge some of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue to secure long-term reconstruction loans before a new Iraqi government is in place to sign off on the proposal.

The plan, endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies, would help avert a looming cash crunch that has the potential to stall the postwar rebuilding effort. One U.S. official rated the proposal's prospects at 50-50.

But the plan is drawing fire from some administration officials, lawmakers, policy analysts and prominent Iraqis who say it would mortgage the Persian Gulf nation's most treasured resource, prevent future leaders from deciding how to spend their oil money and put U.S. taxpayers at risk.

So in other words, they wanted the money NOW for FUTURE oil sales. The plan is "endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies" and the lobbying group includes American contractors Bechtel and Halliburton.

Sorry, what were you saying?


jakomo

The US would never attack North Korea because they're fully aware they would get their asses handed to them.

Hehe...yeah, ok, here's my story for fairy time....

Once upon a time, there was a mean little troll, with wild hair, and really big glasses...who lived in a....

Different agenda if we took out NK... It wouldn't be an occupational war like Iraq.... Technically, you wouldn't even be as concerned with Regime change, you'd simply take out every single military/industrial complex geared for these and other weapons (and C&C facilities, just to make this smoother, and for the bonus of possibly getting Kim), in just a few days of bombing, and the issue would be done...all with the warning of repeated visits if one of those factories goes back up....

As per Jakomo's comments...
I have been seriously busy with school here of late Jakomo, forgive me. But I read this somewhat same rhetoric in another topic you posted/commented in and did not have the time to counter....

The US would never attack North Korea because they're fully aware they would get their asses handed to them.

Back it up Jakomo...your spouting non-factual claims again.

Millions of soldiers in the North Korean army, tons of high tech gadgets, and Air Force (gasp!), and a wacko head of state.

And this constitutes your premise for an American azzwhoppin'? Back it up with something more crediable.

And besides, they're not a Third World country, that's the US's bread and butter when it comes to wars of aggression. Why fight if you're not 100% positive you will win is their attitude.

Jakomo...current history and events may back this assertion up but past history certanly doesn't.

They can rest easy, there are far more easier targets.

Enlighten us Jakomo....I would certainly be interested in "who" else is considered "easier targets?"

How many high-school bullies do you know that picked on the "tough" guy? It was always the pocket-protector, bandaid-on-the-glasses nerds who they push around.

Your analogy is quite persuasive to you and perhaps some others but thats all it amounts to..an analogy. Would that be like me saying that you remind me of a high school kid that is all talk and no bite...that you talk a good game (that so and so is going to get whooped) but can't back it up (have no hard empirical facts to prove your point)?

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Jakomo
PrankMonkey: "please spare me the america attacked them for oil crap."

Sorry, couldn't resist:

villagenews.weblogger.com...$8684

"U. S. May Tap Oil for Iraqi Loans"

Warren Vieth The Los Angeles Times

Friday 11 July 2003

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering a provocative idea to pledge some of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue to secure long-term reconstruction loans before a new Iraqi government is in place to sign off on the proposal.

The plan, endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies, would help avert a looming cash crunch that has the potential to stall the postwar rebuilding effort. One U.S. official rated the proposal's prospects at 50-50.

But the plan is drawing fire from some administration officials, lawmakers, policy analysts and prominent Iraqis who say it would mortgage the Persian Gulf nation's most treasured resource, prevent future leaders from deciding how to spend their oil money and put U.S. taxpayers at risk.

So in other words, they wanted the money NOW for FUTURE oil sales. The plan is "endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies" and the lobbying group includes American contractors Bechtel and Halliburton.

Sorry, what were you saying?


jakomo

you know what? it doesnt matter who was doing what before this war. you only want to blame america for everything that happens.

obviously you didnt read the thread i left a link to as you would have read that i didnt approve of american companies making money over this.

but please....continue your american/bush bashing.

at least i can fair about it and say all are guilty....something i said in the thread you didnt read.

but i know you wont look there. you're convinced and dont want to hear it from someone else.

ive not supported bush's handling of this. ive not defended bush however what i have done is tried to show that EVERYONE involved in this including those who were opposed to it are guilty of wrong doing in some way shape or form.

i never denied there are no good dirty people in charge of the government. i never denied that certain people are only looking out for their own interests.

but like i said. at least im fair when i lay blame. as ALL really ARE guilty.

if you want to feel only america is guilty fine but you arent dealing with someone who is trying to defend bush or those in it for the money.

Ok, heres my 2 cents....

I think that America is the wrong country to handle NK. I think the UK, with the backing of Japan, some of europe, etc, would do a better job. I know you say America are the strongest, but with nukes it's not the strongest who survives. Bush is to Gung-ho and plain cowboyish to deal with Kim.......we need relative intelligence. Wether we kill him or just disarm him, I don't care. He's crazy, he needs to be dealt with one way or another, but I get the feeling Bush's way will end up killing more people than saving.

Yes, it's all just speculation and opinion though........

Now why aren't we going to war with North Korea when they claim to the world they have and will use Nuclear Weapons?

It might have something to do with the couple million in Seoul who would die within minutes of the initial barrage of artillary from right across the DMZ. Or possibly the millions in Japan facing the same fate.

Or I could be wrong...

Greed is guilty. Fear is guilty.

All these admins are looking out for themselves, selfishly. They care not about you. If they did, they'd listen to you. Do they listen to you? Only when it works for them, and when they know they can make a profitable trend.

Terror. Whose shaking in their boots? To most people, 911 is ancient history. Mushroom clouds though, they make lasting impressions on those who witness, and there will be more to witness.

The NK problem is much bigger than the Iraq problem. I personally think that if the US doesn't have a plan to strike, they're ignorant. I'm guessing there is a huge scale plan too.

Where Iraq was about everything from money to terror, NK will be all about terror. Iraq was the warmup. The war on terror officially starts with NK and Iran...and Japan, SouthKorea, China, and everyone else involved.

Good point...but not even the UK, but I'd rather see Russia or China set Kim straight.... But it won't happen.... It's going to get ugly, or it's going to get expensive (i.e. as Kim is only pulling this stunt to be able to squeeze some more oil out of Uncle Sam)...

It seems to me that Bush is a coward. I will agree that N. Korea has an army 10 times more powerful than Iraq but we need to step up and bring peace to the world regardless if the enemy is as powerful as us.

Originally posted by mrmulder
It seems to me that Bush is a coward. I will agree that N. Korea has an army 10 times more powerful than Iraq but we need to step up and bring peace to the world regardless if the enemy is as powerful as us.

well also keep in mind that he forces people to join his army. thats so he can boast about having a million man army.

i'd be interested to see how fast that number dwindled if the situation ever came down to brass tacks and push came to shove.

Originally posted by mrmulder
we need to step up and bring peace to the world regardless if the enemy is as powerful as us.

Why do 'we' decide? Who appointed 'us' as judge anyway?