Bush: Obliterates a country (Iraq) that has no WMD's but refuses to attack a country that does (N.K

Bush says U.S. won't attack North Korea

WASHINGTON - President Bush demanded stiff sanctions on North Korea Wednesday for its reported nuclear test and asserted the U.S. has "no intention of attacking" the reclusive regime despite its claims that it needs atomic weapons to guard against such a strike.

Could someone please explain what our policy is on how we deal with countries that have or intend to have WMD's? How is it that we can obliterate a country that has no WMD's like Iraq (estimates of up to 400,000 dead) but not attack a country like N.K. that now has a nuclear bomb and which has threatened us with using it!

Could it be that N.K. doesn't have enough oil???

[edit on 11-10-2006 by mecheng]

umm... i believe that the nuclear arms non proliferation act only states that you will not stockpile large amounts of nuclear weapons, not that you can't become a nuclear power with one or two workable weapons. and also....like you've stated we're already at war, and not only with iraq, we're still spending a lot of resources and manpower in afghanistan. i just submitted a question to SkepticOverlords "ask the amigos podcast" thread about this topic. my opinion is, if we were to go to war with north korea....our economy would collapse under the strain.

as you've said iraq doesn't have wmd's.....and you know what, we're spending almost 2 billion a week there....can you imagine the spending increase if we went to war with Nk?

and i believe north korea gets it's oil just like america from several different countries that aren't necessarily hostile towards them.

also if NK launched a first strike(nuclear) against america our government would of course respond in kind. and see...i don't think china wants that....the fallout etc. so basically my belief is that china( who also owns a large portion of our national debt) will basically say " if you nuke NK, we quit giving you money and expect you to pay your debt now" that's a pretty big deterrent for america.


aint it great when communists own part of america!......no it isn't

optimus

Are you advocating attacking NK?

Seriously though, my take on it is that 'they' needed to secure the oil fields in the middle east so as to have the fuel needed to run a global military/police state.
If you're going to run the world you need a reliable source of fuel for the machinery.
NK will get there turn eventually. Everyone will get their turn.
The global war on terror has only just begun. It will get much bigger, and I doubt many countries will be spared its ramifications.

It would seem that Bush is following Clinton's policies towards Pakistan and India. But then he did say all options on the table.

But what happened to the Bush Doctrine policy of pre-emption? There's no point saying 'we won't tolerate a Nookular North Korea' now is there? Cuz they got nukes now! And what kind of message is this gonna send out to Nuke wannabes like Iran? Plus Iran can't be hit now out of 'pre-emption' as NK weren't. It's a huge double standard that bodes very badly.

I'm sorry to say but it looks like NK have gotten away with it. the USA after saying don't develop nukes or else, and then don't test them or else have had their redline policy shown to be empty of any real threat and NK have successfully called the USA's bluff on this.

The UN still hasn't come up with anything and already Russia and China are saying they will veto any Chapter 7 resolution which means the use of force to enforce drops off the table.

Who knows...maybe Bush decided he wants the world to see how the world would face the consequences of allowing nations like Iraq, Iran or NK to get nukes. That preemptive action is the best policy.

It smacks more of appeasement and fear to me. Once a power actually has nukes the whole policy seems to change towards them. The way things are going NK may even have sanctions against them eased if it 'gets them back to the table'. Sounds like '39 to me.

There's certainly no swift and united action coming from the U.N. they are saying 'next week' now.

This could herald the end of US international intervention because it's such a turnaround from their repeated threats against NK. Admittedly it appears to be checkmate position but that has at least been seen to be coming. NK, Iran and others will all have a good laugh over this and it will encourage them and others to take further and greater liberties knowing that a redline is merely a line in the sand.

It's starting to look like poem: The Centre cannot hold, things are falling apart. Especially watching Manhattan burning AGAIN. The image of the US has been heavily tarnished these past weeks.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Who knows...maybe Bush decided he wants the world to see how the world would face the consequences of allowing nations like Iraq, Iran or NK to get nukes. That preemptive action is the best policy.

If so, then he's worse of a human than I already thought. You don't drown a baby to teach it how to swim. You don't throw mustard gas at untrained soldiers to teach them what to do in that situation.

Man, what an indictment on the failed policies of the Bush administration. Bomb the living hell out of a country that was essentially no threat to us or the rest of the world, killing hundreds of thousands or Iraqis while costing the taxpayers billions of dollars, all the while allowing N.K. to not only develop and now test a true WMD and do nothing about it while its leader threatens to us it against us.

Good luck this November!

[edit on 11-10-2006 by mecheng]

Who knows mecheng, maybe its all part of the plan, the conspiracy, the utlimate doctrine, where Bush wants the world to sweat with NK with nukes, how it affects the region and the world. That preemptive strike is the best policy. Its like saying see I told you so, so don't criticize my policy again please.

The problem with you Leftists is you never confomr to a single side, you Liberals were the first ones demanding an invasion of Iraq, we invade Iraq and you get upset, now your demanding we attack NK, weeks after you call it a mistake. FLIP FLOPPERS!

I don't agree it's plain and simple fear. Fear of a nuclear equipped power. Same way US treats Pakistan with kid gloves since they went nookular even though Musharaf took over in a coup and is not democratically elected. US have not pushed for freedom loving democracy over there, even though it's a fact AQ and Taliban are sheltered within their borders.

It's becoming easier to see how the machinary of policy works now that's for sure.

Deltaboy...
Possibly. But right now the only reason (other than the fact that we're stretched so thin) for going so hard and heavy in Iraq but now say we're not going to do the same against N.K. is... oil. Think about it. Bush comes from oil. Its in his and his friends best interest to control and occupy (now till at least 2010) all the oil in Iraq.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by mecheng]

It's not just Oil though it's the Nuke issue and the fact as soon as hostilities kicked off Soeul would be bombed flat and SK would be overrun. Also the fact that in this particular case USA cannot act unilaterally as China and Russia would not allow it. It truly is a checkmate situation as far as US is concerned.

Sniper06...
I think you got that backwards bud. I don't think you'll ever see a lefty advocating war. And I'm not flip flopping. If anything, George is the one that doesn't have a consistant policy. I think most "lefties" would rather not have war at all.
However, if we did have to go to war, which do you prefer we protect ourselves from... Iraq, who has no WMD's or N.K. that has a FREEKIN nuclear bomb and who has THREATENED US WITH IT???
Don't blame this mess on "us lefties"!


Also, I don't really blame anyone in the general public for advocating us going to war with Iraq in the beginning. After all, we were told all along that they had WMD's... or wait was it that they were harboring terrorist... or wait they had relations with OBL... aw, who knows anymore why we're there.



[edit on 11-10-2006 by mecheng]

Here's what Alex Jone thinks...

Neo-Cons Spin Dud Test To Hide Nuclear Hypocrisy

The Neo-Con spin, that North Korea has not advanced to the point it claims and that the threat is diminished compared to more pressing targets of the Bush war machine, is intended to shield the hypocrisy of ignoring a nuclear-capable dictatorship that has threatened to destroy the world and fired test missiles that have hit Alaska, while obsessing about Iran, completely surrounded by U.S. client states and as much as fifteen years away from the bomb.

Can't go after N.K. when what we really need to do is go after Iran. Why Iran? What does Iran and Iraq have in common? WMD's? No... OIL.

Originally posted by mecheng
Here's what Alex Jone thinks...

Neo-Cons Spin Dud Test To Hide Nuclear Hypocrisy

Can't go after N.K. when what we really need to do is go after Iran. Why Iran? What does Iran and Iraq have in common? WMD's? No... OIL.

The French must be part of the NeoCons plans.

news.yahoo.com...

PARIS - France said outright for the first time Wednesday that North Korea's proclaimed nuclear test produced such a small blast that it must have failed, and analysts warned such challenging talk could lead Pyongyang to try again.

Originally posted by Sniper06
The problem with you Leftists is you never confomr to a single side, you Liberals were the first ones demanding an invasion of Iraq, we invade Iraq and you get upset, now your demanding we attack NK, weeks after you call it a mistake. FLIP FLOPPERS!

BINGO!

You have voted Sniper06 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

You hit it dead on! This is exactly how I am seeing it. If Bush went ahead with a pre-emptive strike on NK we would have many saying "Well there goes that warmonger screwing another country" now that he doesn't "Oh what's his problem?"

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Until NK seriously causes some kind of serious provocation, I do not see military action necessary. Let China start to work things out, maybe? But that doesn't look hopeful.

Originally posted by mecheng
However, if we did have to go to war, which do you prefer we protect ourselves from... Iraq, who has no WMD's or N.K. that has a FREEKIN nuclear bomb and who has THREATENED US WITH IT???

Well obviously now that you know Iraq doesn't have WMD's it so easy to say this, BUT at the time the intelligence stated different. AND military action wasn't the first method to resolve the issues with Saddam; there were resolution after resolution.

Right now with NK sure they are trying the diplomacy. Will it work? probably not NK seems stubborn.

Saddam was a threat to Isreal and his own people, but Bush should have concentraged on Afgan and sorted them out then Iraq.

Iraq is a big country and now seems a bit far fetched to make war with them.
Shame really looks bad on America but at the same time see hope that no other middle east country would get from their frozen time warp of intollerence of other cultures. Someone may wake up from the middle east and start behaving like humans rather than brainwashed zombies, bring mental freedom and creativity back to them, if it has not been genetically routed out by now by selection.