[Kov]

So far it has been this-

Afganistan
Iraq
Soon to be North C

But after this wave of imperialisum, which nation shall America resort to being pissed at? Opinions comrades?

[KurtFF8]

we will invade france! (and no were not gonna go to war with north korea.. i doubt it)

[Adrien]

we will invade france! (and no were not gonna go to war with north korea.. i doubt it)

Ahah, you betrayed yourself!

To come back to Comrade Kov's question, we can think that Bush will extend his little middle-east holiday trip to Iran, Arabia, ... Well, let's see the good point of Bush's policy: his soldiers will have a free sun-tan!

[Wilhelm]

North Korea, Iran, and then it will go and kick some Palestinian ass. Afterwards, they can go and take Lybia.

After that is over, they'll try to gain more corporate control in the world, and any nation that opposes that will be bashed by them.

[CasX]

I don't see them going after anyone else too soon, that'll make them insanely unpopular.

I still don't know why the USA is obsessed over Iraq and ignore North Korea. I don't even think N Korea is a real threat but the US seem to think so. However they stressed the need for a "diplomatic resolution" because it is a "regional issue". Then what the fuck is the Iraqi situation?

[Kov]

North K is far to big a fish in teh whater. It also has the potential of having atoic bombs. Many, as to comrade Intrep_00hs ideals may be in range of the UNited State's wester shore. Thsi in tern would probably give ample reason for America to avoid any long war with North K. On the issue of Iran however, it is wuite possible that other middle eastern countries will start to fall... one by one... country by country...

Time will only tell.

[sokath]

You guys don't understand the North Korea situation! It's much more complex (or simple) than it appears.

Take a look at my post on the topic.

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=330

S./

[Comrade Koatna]

I do and have agreed with Comrade Kov on this North Korea is indeed a threat to the U.S. (just like half the other vcountries in the world) And the US sees anyone with potential nuclear technology to be first on their "hit list"

[Kov]

North K is a big fish in the water comrade. Sokath, I know the north K issue farrly well, and if they have atomics, which tehy undoubtebly do, then a direct attack is not possible.

[sokath]

North K is a big fish in the water comrade.

No they're not! They can't even feed their army anymore let alone their people. They've got nothing these days, China doesn't even like them that much, their alliance is just on paper. N Korea is a literally a dead country. There's no "big fish" element to it at all.

Sokath, I know the north K issue farrly well, and if they have atomics, which tehy undoubtebly do, then a direct attack is not possible.

How do they "undoubtedly" have atomic weapons? Based on what information? Because CNN told you so? You know better than that Kov, c'mon. Let's see some REAL proof of these nuclear weapons.

And even if they did have them, the point is moot, there's no one N Korea would ACTUALLY be able to attack anyway. They could not attack anyone with an even possible benefit to themselves. (Let's not even talk about the range/accuracy of their missiles). They couldn't even take S Korea because someone else would move in to respond. N Korea is an emasculated country with no reason to attack anyone, because they'd NEVER come out on top. They are not a threat, and their being in the "axis of evil" is just a piece of public relations to keep the rest of the world from thinking that the US has a vendetta against Arab states.

S./

[Comrade Koatna]

Sokath, A country doesnt have to be economically sound to be a military threat. They may not be able to feed theyre people but they do have one of the largset armies around and also most likely have atomic tech. which means they ARE a "big fish"

[Kov]

Even if they cannot feed their own men, it does not matter in many ways. If half the civilians die, there will be surplus food, not to mention that they still get economic aid.

Yes only in my perspective do they have atomics, but I have faith that they do. And even if they dont, they are very close to getting them.

You must agree on one thing however, attack north K, atomics or not, will not be even close to a cake walk.

Oh and... any luck with my sig , thought I would sneak this in

[Proctor]

You guys are missing sokath's point. What he said can be simplified to 'North Korea know that if they attack someone they will die, and seeing as they have nothing to gain from war anyway, they will not attack anyone'. I wholeheartedly agree.

[sokath]

You guys are missing sokath's point. What he said can be simplified to 'North Korea know that if they attack someone they will die, and seeing as they have nothing to gain from war anyway, they will not attack anyone'. I wholeheartedly agree.

Gahhhhh! THANK YOU! *phew* I'm glad I'm getting through to somebody.



S./

[Hate Your State]

What would possibly give you the idea that North Korea has nuclear ability? Putting aside the ridiculous lack of logic that N. Korea would potentially attack another nation, what makes you all think that it actually has any such weapons?

Honestly, North Korea wouldn't have been mentioned on this message board if it had not been talked about on CNN. Here is my analysis of the situation:

CNN broadcasts the message that North Korea admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, then just a month and a half later, there is one of those 'crawlers' at the bottom of the screen saying "Kim Jong Il denies ever having admitted to having nuclear weapons program". Here is an enormous inconsistency. If Kim Jong had really issued that statement, he would not come out a month later denying it, because he knew that it would put his country in the global spotlight. That to me is a sign of a lie.

Also, there was a clever manipulation of one particular event to solidify the American argument that N. Korea has and is prepared to use nuclear weapons. When it was announced on CNN that North Korea had withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they treated it like proof that the country had these WMDs.

Now for the backstory on this. After the Korean War, during which many power plants were targeted by US bombings and the country's energy infrastructure was almost completely annihilated, the UN decreed that the US should send Korea 500,000 barrels of oil to power it until they could pay for the construction of light water plants. Korea was not allowed to have its nuclear reactor (because there was American suspicion that it could be used to produce nuclear weapons in secret), which provided most of the countryside with power, because of the NPT.

Those light water plants were never constructed, and North Korea has had an energy crisis ever since. As a result, it was forced to reopen its nuclear reactor, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no coincidence in this. CNN could easily have put out a fake report that N. Korea had made this announcement, knowing beforehand that it would reopen its illegal reactor due to the energy crisis, thus violating the NPT.

That's how propaganda works.

[Kov]

Sokath! Why could you not have said it more simply! I am shure that most of us here (where is my sig) belive the same thing...

(where is my sig)

You should have said it bluntly for those of us that where not compleatly here when we read your post. (where is my sig)

[Proctor]

Your sig is bigger than 400x100, so has been replaced with the Sig Police image. And I don't think sokath was that elusive... *ponders*

[ahab]

I don't see them going after anyone else too soon, that'll make them insanely unpopular.

Next on the to do list for US:

• N Korea for their energy crisis and unfriendly activity (suspicion of nuke activity, missile firings) Will help US popularity immensely
• creation of Paletinian state (gotta keep the arabs happy)

after this it is speculation, listed from most likely to least likely (in my opinion, whatever that is worth):

• Syria - haven't been agreeable with US in the Iraq war, and could collapse after rebuilding of Iraq
• Columbia - 30 years of civil war, I know a few columbians that want the US to do something, the US already has advisors (just like vietnam started) in Columbia
• Somalia - terrorist breeding ground, and things aren't going well there
• Iran - Might not be the nicest people in the world, and not the most cooperative with the US either
• Saudia Arabia - this would f* things up bigtime, so it is very doubtful, but the SA gov't isn't that nice, and most terrorists are Saudis
• Yugoslavia - make these jerks get along and stop them from changing their name again (jk)

I'd also like to note that this is what the Bush administration has been saying about these countries, not necessairly inline with what I think

[ahab]

Another generation of US imerialism. Haven't they fucked the world up enough?

A lot of places on the "countries to mess with" list were messed with by the US in the past, and a lot of people feel we should finally correct what we did to those countries (if everything goes to plan )

[Proctor]

Interesting.

North Korea - Some kind of a solution is needed or the US will look bad. A war is unrealistic, both sides don't like the idea of getting nuked. I'd like to see a unified Korea, and I really don't care whether its socialist or democratic (I know these are the stereotypes and aren't necessarily true. Don't bother proving it to me). This seems unlikely, so I think the UN will step in in a couple of months and broker some kind of a deal. Hopefully both sides will keep to it this time...

Palestine - A Palestinian state would look great for the US, and would certainly make me happy. I don't like Sharon OR Arafat, but I could live with them both still being in power. It is quite possible, it all depends on how reasonable the negotiators from the three nations can be.

Syria - A war would prove nothing, and wouldn't help the US much either. At the same time, the Syrian government sucks, so something should be done. Some kind of strong diplomatic push for democracy? I think this is the most likely outcome as well. Whether it will work or not I don't know enough to answer.

Columbia - Not the US' problem. Ideally, they should pull their troops and whatever else they have in their OUT, and refer the situation to the UN. Realistically, nothing will change. Columbia will still have their civil war and both sides will make millions in drugs.

Somalia - Their screwed. Leave them alone. The UN should again do something. I have no idea what will actually happen.

Iran - They're a democracy already for God's sake! How can you wage a holy war against them? I won't support it, but the US will probably take the same stance against Iran as to Syria, whatever that may be.

Saudi Arabia - They're a mess as well. A rich king and a lot of people who seem to hate everyone. I don't think anything will happen there, but I think something should. Those people didn't get that pissed off for nothing.

Yugoslavia - Don't even exist any more. How can you act against a non existant country? For the first time in decades, the place is looking alright, if you ignore the assassination from just the other week...