Re: North Korea -- mikeknight dot com discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

Subject: Re: North Korea

Author:
sibo

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:29:13 03/19/03 Wed
In reply to: Melody Berry 's message, "Re: North Korea" on 21:04:45 03/17/03 Mon

So if 'ignoring the problem' is the correct response to NK, why did the Administration not apply the same response to Iraq?

NK in all likelihood would not attack the US. But then again, there was no reason to believe Iraq would strike us either (prior to this whole buildup, anyway).

It seems unfair to my liberal-infected mind.

>ok, but honestly, no one would want to go to war with
>north korea. how many americans do you know that would
>get excited about killing kim jong il?
>
>there really is a big difference between iraq and
>north korea, and i'm not talking about their weapons
>capabilities.
>
>kim is either a genuis or a moron, but i'm pretty sure
>its genuis. in the same way, bush is also a lot
>smarter than most people give him credit for (i'm sure
>he really needs a high school student's opinion to
>reassure himself of this).
>
>so, i don't think bush is holding a double standard,
>bc iraq and nk are two completely different
>situations. nk is not a larger threat than iraq, bc
>they are trying to build up their own power, not
>neccessarily tear down america's.
>
>as far as the approach the US should take, this is
>were i begin to doubt myself. obviously, military
>action is out of the question. that leaves diplomacy
>or ignoring the problem. again, diplomacy isn't on
>il's agenda. and right now bush is doing a fantastic
>job of ignoring the problem. he might be getting a lot
>of criticism, but then again, what are political
>analysts paid for? all things considered (ok, i'm
>probably missing a key point), as bad as it sounds, i
>think the current approach taken by the US toward nk
>is logical. we'll probably end up dealing with them 20
>years down the road. but hey, "money in the military
>is still money in the economy" (right).
>
>mike, i'm dying to know your opinion on this question,
>as i'm sure you're dying to say it.
>
>that is all.
>
>mel

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]