Re: It's like a movie
 

Hi Michael

Nothing like a spirited discussion!

Just a small point - re Iraq 'killing its own people" - Mr Average in Korea is eating GRASS to stay alive, for goodness' sake! So if we're talking about how dictators treat their people, let's not lose sight of the fact that Mr Kim Il whatisname has starved to death THOUSANDS of his own people.

Guy's a complete wacko. And a dangerous wacko at that.

Philip

> Korea's ranting and carrying on reminds me
> of Wag The Dog...

> There's a scene where DeNiro says to DENY
> the spy plane (or whatever it was that
> didn't actually exist). Doing so would make
> the media concentrate on the denial and not
> on what was actually going on.

> Korea threatening nuclear strikes and
> carrying on like an idiot while nothing has
> been said to them - as far as I am aware -
> is like that part of Wag The Dog. Create
> interest in one thing... possibly to
> distract from something else.

> Also. Korea just wants attention.

> As for pre-emtive strike et al. I would
> hardly think Korea's situation bares any
> resemblence to Iraq - 12 years with 17+
> resolutions and a severe lack of
> co-operation while simultaneously killing
> its own citizens after creating a huge
> environmental catastrophe by blowing up over
> 100 oil wells.

> Korea is open about its weapons - look, we
> are building nuclear weapons. Iraq says we
> have nothing bad then rockets which exceed
> ranges are found as well as mustard gas
> (which, I believe was outlawed last
> century). Hmmm.

> No comparison IMO.

> Michael Ross

I agree
 

> Nothing like a spirited discussion!

Yep. And civil too.

> Just a small point - re Iraq 'killing its
> own people" - Mr Average in Korea is
> eating GRASS to stay alive, for goodness'
> sake! So if we're talking about how
> dictators treat their people, let's not lose
> sight of the fact that Mr Kim Il whatisname
> has starved to death THOUSANDS of his own
> people.

> Guy's a complete wacko. And a dangerous
> wacko at that.

Hey. I agree. Total looney. Never said he wasn't. In fact, as I wrote on another board... all Dictators should be removed from power.

My point in the previous post was the comparison between us taking care of Iraq once and for all and how it related to Korea in the context of pre-emptive strikes and the presented reasoning in the post it was brought up in. (Confused?)

Sod Him, Qadaffi, Castro, Him Looney. Be gone with them. Just for starters.

Michael Ross

Historical parallels?
 

Hi,

Link is below...

Good luck,

- Boyd


Historical parallels?

Re: Dien, "pre-emptive"? I don't think so.
 

The U.S. isn't just going around for countries to invade.

Whatever the U.S. does in Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War agreements Sod Em was supposed to follow. We've given him 13 years and 17 (or so resolutions)

He has never complied.

Isn't that long enough?

Too bad these decisions weren't made 10 years ago, then it would be harder to make the "pre-emptive" argument.

Joe Bob

> What is a "pre-emptive strike"?
> It's when someone has not attacked you yet -
> but you fear that they will. So you attack
> them first instead.

> The planned war against Iraq is a
> pre-emptive war. Iraq has not attacked any
> other country since the last Gulf war (and I
> personally don't think they have the means
> to attack anyone either at the moment). But
> - due to fear - we are proposing to attack
> them first.

> As I said, this works both ways. If you've
> been reading the news, you'll notice that
> North Korea has also now threatened a

> "pre-emptive strike" against the
> USA, if it fears the US will attack it. That
> means North Korea is using the same
> reasoning the USA is using in order to
> possibly strike the USA first. This is all
> the more worrying because North Korea has an
> estimated one or two nuclear weapons, and it
> has missiles which are capable of delivering
> these nukes to the continental USA (as well
> as most of the rest of the world).

> The USA hasn't replied (to my knowledge) to
> North Korea's threat of a pre-emptive
> strike. How can it? After all, North Korea
> is using the same logic that the USA is
> using in the Middle East. They fear the USA
> may attack, so they say that they have the
> right to a "pre-emptive strike"
> and to attack the USA first.

> As I said, it works both ways. If you accept
> the validity of pre-emptive strikes on
> others, then you should also accept a
> possible pre-emptive strike against
> yourself. The same logic used by the USA to
> initiate a war against Iraq, could be used
> by North Korea to send a nuclear weapon into
> any major US city.

> If pre-emptive strikes become the norm, then
> I think we will live in a much more
> dangerous world.

> - Dien Rice