Quantcast

WWIII? N. Korea warns of pre-emptive strike

The Toninator

The Toninator

Muffin
Jul 6, 2001
5,436
17
High(ts) Htown
Feb. 6 — North Korea could launch pre-emptive strikes against U.S. forces rather than wait for an American attack after a war with Iraq, a spokesman for the nation told a British daily newspaper on Thursday. In response, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the United States was ready to deal with “any contingencies” involving North Korea.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp
 
BurlyShirley

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by N8
I say go for it N Korea... at best they might be able to hit California...

:D :cool: :devil:
Click to expand...
Actually the best they could do is Hawaii.

Too bad i live there.:(
 
patconnole

patconnole

Monkey
Jun 4, 2002
396
0
bellingham WA
Just thought this was funny:

Terry Jones picks a different target. Writing in the London Observer, Jones revels in the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attacks justified by speculation -- particularly as it might apply to neighborhood disputes.


"I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know -- from very good sources -- that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one."
 
LordOpie

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
Originally posted by patconnole
Just thought this was funny:

Terry Jones picks a different target. Writing in the London Observer, Jones revels in the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive attacks justified by speculation -- particularly as it might apply to neighborhood disputes.


"I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know -- from very good sources -- that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one."
Click to expand...
not to get too literal, but if "Mr. Johnson" and "Mr. Patel" had both demonstrated (in the past) serious and deadly acts, I don't think that anecdote would hold up.
 
patconnole

patconnole

Monkey
Jun 4, 2002
396
0
bellingham WA
Originally posted by LordOpie
not to get too literal, but if "Mr. Johnson" and "Mr. Patel" had both demonstrated (in the past) serious and deadly acts, I don't think that anecdote would hold up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know- don't want to structure a debate off this one.. but, my general perspective on this is--- Iraq has never attacked us. yes, they've used their weapons before-- so did we in afghanistan and so many other places. I think the only reason Iraq poses a threat is because we've threatened it. It just seems like people are innappropriately connecting Iraq and 9/11, and they've forgotten the Taliban....... nevermind. A tiring subject.
 
LordOpie

LordOpie

MOTHER HEN
Oct 17, 2002
21,022
3
Denver
Originally posted by patconnole
Yeah, I know- don't want to structure a debate off this one.. but, my general perspective on this is--- Iraq has never attacked us. yes, they've used their weapons before-- so did we in afghanistan and so many other places. I think the only reason Iraq poses a threat is because we've threatened it. It just seems like people are innappropriately connecting Iraq and 9/11, and they've forgotten the Taliban....... nevermind. A tiring subject.
Click to expand...
How many countries have directly attacked us (USA) in recent history? Does that mean we should sit idly by while attrocities are commited? No, I don't think we always do the right thing or for the right reason, but I do think the USA generally doesn't want the torture, abuse or genocide of other countries' citizens.

The logic is, "well, why are we attacking Saddam and Iraq and not the other countries?" Does that matter? Fact is, Iraq still commits these crimes. Just because there are other agendas going on doesn't minimize Iraq's crimes.
 
fluff

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by LordOpie
How many countries have directly attacked us (USA) in recent history? Does that mean we should sit idly by while attrocities are commited? No, I don't think we always do the right thing or for the right reason, but I do think the USA generally doesn't want the torture, abuse or genocide of other countries' citizens.

The logic is, "well, why are we attacking Saddam and Iraq and not the other countries?" Does that matter? Fact is, Iraq still commits these crimes. Just because there are other agendas going on doesn't minimize Iraq's crimes.
Click to expand...
No one is gonna claim Saddam is a nice guy. His regime is nasty but that's not the reason for invasion and we all know it. It's just part of a smokescreen. When was the last time that the US invaded any country because of human rights violations?

The question is why is invasion being discussed? It's either the 'war on terrorism', weapons of mass destruction or oil.

It's not the first because the links are too tenuous. Oil will never be given as a reason so the US and UK governments are desperately trying to prove the WMD basis for war.

All this other crap about human rights is a sideshow, and there are plenty of other countries with WMDs. It's not hard to see why some people should think this war would be immoral.
 
patconnole

patconnole

Monkey
Jun 4, 2002
396
0
bellingham WA
Originally posted by LordOpie
The logic is, "well, why are we attacking Saddam and Iraq and not the other countries?" Does that matter? Fact is, Iraq still commits these crimes. Just because there are other agendas going on doesn't minimize Iraq's crimes.
Click to expand...

I think it does matter a bit-- We should be asking why Iraq is being singled out. I totally agree though, Saddam's crimes shouldn't be minimized.... I just really doubt they have anything to do with why we're invading.
 
DRB

DRB

unemployed bum
Oct 24, 2002
15,242
0
Watchin' you. Writing it all down.
Originally posted by fluff
No one is gonna claim Saddam is a nice guy. His regime is nasty but that's not the reason for invasion and we all know it. It's just part of a smokescreen. When was the last time that the US invaded any country because of human rights violations?

All this other crap about human rights is a sideshow, and there are plenty of other countries with WMDs. It's not hard to see why some people should think this war would be immoral.
Click to expand...
You are so right. I forgot why it was the US was in Kosovo. I forgot why the US was in Bosnia. I forgot why the US was in Haiti. I forgot why the US was in Somalia. And just to prove how right you are, its the reasons that we rolled right on thru Kuwait, took Bagdad, deposed Saddam and installed a puppet government in 1991. I forgot why it was that Americans went to Korea in the 50's. I forgot why Americans went to Europe twice and stayed to watch the neighborhood during the Cold War.

As for human rights, you get to talk when you take your own government to task on the wonderful human rights record in Northern Ireland, Borneo, Oman or the wonderful situation the English, French and Belgians left in Africa when you up and left them to their own devices when they wanted something called Independence. I'm sure that all of those IRA members that have disappeared into the British government had their human rights protected. Then there was that nice jaunt the British and the French took into the Suez in 1956. That was about human rights wasn't it? Shall I go on? Yes? Okay I will. How about the mess you left in Palestine soon to be Israel when ya'll left in 1948? The fact of the matter is that a large portion of todays problems in that region are because the British did NOTHING to ensure an orderly transition, in fact they ensured that it would disorderly. I'm sure that the Political Debate forum would love to talk about that. When you are done with that, then I'll know you are serious. Until then I think I heard the Pot calling you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom