I don’t have the link readily available, but I read this morning in NYTimes, that US will deal with N. Korea diplomatically regarding unke proliferation/development while it is prepared to go to War with Iraq over suspicions. It is very dangerous precedent to set. To deal with two nations differently. I say, go to war with N. Korea too, or don’t go to war at all. What do you think?
I'd say just one thing NYA. Your account must be hacked. Get a good anti-virus. Or else please stop relying on Al-Jazeera for news. Its messing up your mind. What happened to "America can do no wrong"? Malik will be so happy today.
Alhamdollilah.
Welcome to the dark side!
Faisal, as far as I can tell, hacking has not taken place, it is the same PC that I used earlier today. What you failed to notice is that this is to get everyone in a room before doing the belly dance. Wait until I lift the curtain.
Iraq will have the opportunity to avoid conflict if it follows the (current/furture) resolutions. I think N. Korea should be given the same opportunity to show that it is a peaceful nation, perhaps that is why they have announced they had a program in the first place, to pull it from underneath the table so everyone can see it and then come to a peaceful solution of disarming. I'm sure they would be rewarded by many for such an action.
UTD, completely ludicrous. N/ Korea signed the non-prolif treaty, they are not even admitting whether they have the bomb or not. They are saying “we are not going to tell you, go F yourself”. And that’s where the difference comes from. US will never ever wage the same kind of threats against N. Korea as it does to Iraq, because N. Korea has legitimate (however wrong) reasons. Japanese colonialism messed them up, and they are going to use that as an excuse to continuing their moronic ways. The world knows that N. Korea is not Iraq, it means business and it is in a position to inflict heavy damage, and US knows that too well. It will only go as far as calling it an Axis of Evil nation, but it will never threaten to attack it, as it is doing to Iraq.
The difference in policy is due to only two reasons, N. Korea doesn’t have Oil and there is no Israeli state nearby :)
Ok seriously...
>>It is very dangerous precedent to set. To deal with two nations differently.<<
They are not setting any new precedence, as this is nothing new. USA, or any country, is free to treat any nation as they deem fit in accordance with their national interests.
Moral principles and equal treatments are a luxuries best left to those who can afford it.
Hypothetically, if US ever suspects that N. Korea will be providing their nuke tech to terrorists to harm US, I am sure they will take as strong a measure in response as elsewhere. It just depends on the level of suspicion and hypochondria. Plus ofcourse, as MiniMe so promptly pointed out, there is the small issue of oil. It would not have helped if North Korea had anything worth capturing. They are a bunch of losers anyway. Let them live in their lala land.
Not only that, NK statement states that they have "more powerful wepons than that". Consistency and Principled Stand (e.g. Pakistan on Kashmir) mentality merely puts a strait jacket on. Americans don't think like that. Pragmatism is the key. What works! Iraq is Iraq, NK is NK. They need to be dealt differently. Different cultures different people different situations etc. Bush was roundly criticised for lumping NK in the axis of evil. It turns out he was merely calling a spade a spade. Why pretend that nothing is wrong. Why would the americans be hobbled by some stupid notion of apparent consistency. It is a dangerous world. It should be interesting to see if the French display their national trait and start talking collaboration. I suspect that they will. I don't believe that the Europeans have the stomach to face the world as it is shaping up. I suspect that this time around the allies are going to be very very different. I think the reports that NK is doing this to start serious negotiations are wishful thinking. I think they want to negotiate a different status for themselves. It is an attempt to blackmail South Korea. Will the haves of S. Korea fold and accept the North Koreans as their master when faced with Nuclear war? Perhaps. It is not obvious that they will not.
NK has no oil.....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
NK has no oil.....
[/QUOTE]
They have WMD's
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
They are a bunch of losers anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Just a reminder, these "losers" provide pakistan with the missile technology.
NK have a right.. like everyone else, to get their hands on whatever WMD that pleases them.. it’s all a matter of timing NYA… USA knows for sure Iraq doesn’t have WMD.. so it’s easy to accuse and then bomb the hell out of them, knowing pretty well there will be no outfall.. but NK.. where do u start when your level of intelligence is relying on the state themself admitting to a nuclear plan 
Expcet economic sanctions, tough talk and the sort .. a la Pak and India.. once u get those WMD’s .. u’re not cannon fodder anymore.
Saddam is late by a couple of years… should’ve completed whatever the hell he wanted to build while Clinton was still entertaining his guests with Cigars.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DJ18Dg04.html
George W Bush has only himself to blame if he is now called a hypocrite for negotiating with North Korea’s self-confessed nuclear arms builder Kim Jong-il but not Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. It was Bush who lumped them together. But in strategic terms, a Middle East without Saddam is vastly more important than a North Korea without Kim. That won’t be said out loud; it’s fact nonetheless. - Marc Erikson (Oct 17, '02)
Something that has been happening over years since the beginning of this state, has to be taken not that serious be the outsiders.
It’s like a virus. You get infected and it starts spreading fast. And then there comes a time when you don’t even feel or realize that virus any more. You get IMMUNE!
North Korea wants a promise from the US of no nuclear threat from the US made to them, now. It is they who feel threatened, it seems. The US has these arms, primarily because of the Cold War. I would hope that our history isn't one where their threat has been used much internationally.
Iraqi with nukes !!!
Lets give iraq bunch of nukes.. and some long range missiles that can reach every inch of israel and mr. blair witch's house.. guess the US/zionist/blair's war hysteria will die on its on.. not to mention all the different 'timed' bombings going on in different parts of the world supposedly by "muslims"..
Re: Iraqi with nukes !!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ButterFingers: *
Lets give iraq bunch of nukes.. and some long range missiles that can reach every inch of israel and a blair witches house.. guess the US/zionist/blair's war hysteria will die on its on.. not to mention all the different 'timed' bombings going on in different parts of the world supposedly by "muslims"..
[/QUOTE]
What I don't undestand is if this was ever came true, Israel would be th elargest middle east nation, stretching frpm the egypt to Afghanistan. Why don't the arabs learn their lessons and pipe down and try to better them selves educationally, politically and militarily before taking on the great Israel. (If China can be great China then ISrael can be great Israel, at least in the middle east)
Some leaders in the Muslim world are well aware of the dangers lurking in provoking Israel too far. Even Saddam may have thought better of really having at it with Israel.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Some leaders in the Muslim world are well aware of the dangers lurking in provoking Israel too far. Even Saddam may have thought better of really having at it with Israel.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, that's the biggest understatement of the year. Israel rocks the house and it's lucky for the arabs that they hold back otherwise, Tel Aviv would be located next to Kabul.
I guess going to war with NK isn't good coz there are lots of American stationed in SN as well as neighbouring Japan....and NK can strike them.