SithLord

We invaded Iraq just because htey "might" have had WMD (which they didn't) yet the psychotic N Korea regime tests nuclear weapons and we do nothing.

It's because we can't! Thanks to G W Bush's tying our hands in Iraq.

Thanks to this test Osama and the rest of the terrorists know exactly where to buy a nuke that works.

Yet the Iraq war was supposed to make us safer...

DizzyDee

I've been saying this for a long time. Just after they invaded Iraq under false pretenses, North Korea was known to actually possess nuclear weapons (although I don't believe they were testing them). I asked the same questions. Why did Bush attack one country for suspected WMD but leave N. Korea alone when they knew they had WMD? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I mentioned this to a friend once and he said, well who would you rather bully someone who can't fight back, or someone who can blow your brains out?

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

}SoC{Sumguy

and there was the small fact that if we tried China would attack us.....

it kinda complicates things, when the 2nd most powerful nation in the world, with enough nukes to destroy the entire world, attacks you.

i dont think many people want that.

old quote from Teddy Rosevelt: "do what you can, with what you have. no more, no less."

__________________
"And now you've seen his face,
and you know that there's a place
in the sun, for all that you've done.
For you and your children.
You always wanted to beleive.
Just ask and you'll receive,
beyond your wildest dreams.
And you already know how this will end...."

SithLord

Nice try, but

A) Even China has condemned their testing.
B) If we attacked them we'd actually have the backing of the world this time including Russia.

The cowboy way doesn't work in this day and age. Precision air strikes and special forces on the ground is all that would be required. We need to hit them NOW before they develop a missile that can reach our shores.

}SoC{Sumguy

im talking about 4 years ago.

and yes, i agree that they should be stopped with force, if neccesary.

__________________
"And now you've seen his face,
and you know that there's a place
in the sun, for all that you've done.
For you and your children.
You always wanted to beleive.
Just ask and you'll receive,
beyond your wildest dreams.
And you already know how this will end...."

Faydwyn

“We” attacked Iraq because “we” could and because they had something “we” wanted.

As far as North Korea is concerned, I can kind of see where they are coming from. Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not support North Korea, and I am against nuclear weapons no matter who holds them. However, put yourselves in their place. Bush spouts off this whole axis of evil thing. The country on the list that was not a threat he invaded. He is making plans to attack a second country (using nuclear weapons…oh the irony) on the list. This second country does not have nuclear weapons either and the evidence that it is developing them is questionable. Now you’re North Korea who is also on this list and you look at this and go, “they’re attacking countries that don’t have the bomb, maybe we should make like we do.”

And what about the hypocrisy? The U.S. can have nuclear weapons but no one else can? Not only that, but “we” are developing new nuclear weapons technology and upgrading old warheads. There are many other instances of “our” hypocrisy with nuclear technology, never mind all the other issues.

Iran, thus far, has done nothing illegal. For them to develop nuclear technology for civil purpose is well within international law and treaties they have signed. Do I like the idea of North Korea having atomic bombs or Iran developing them? No. But maybe they wouldn’t feel so much like they have to if U.S. wasn’t so hypocritical and such a bully.

DizzyDee

I've often thought of that too Faydwyn - why does the US get nuclear weapons and no one else can have them? Especially when they are the ones who used them during a war that was practically over anyway.

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Faydwyn

That’s a really good point, especially considering all of Bush’s rhetoric. How can the U.S. say it has a higher level of morality and is more discerning in the use of such weapons when it is the one that used them on what was essentially a defeated enemy because it wanted an unconditional surrender?

MickinEngland

The Japs had sworn to defend every inch of the Japanese homeland,so an American D-Day type invasion would have cost thousands of US lives.
The two atom bombs made the Japs give up without a fight, that's good because it brought peace.
"Blessed are the peacemakers" - Jesus of Nazareth

DizzyDee

Peace was on its way, and it certainly did not bring peace to Japan, although it is remarkable how they came back from the devastation. All human life is sacred and either way war loses lives on both sides.

Thousands of lives were still lost, the environmental damage caused severe deformities and disease, and the devastation was immoral.

__________________
DizzyDee

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell