[$tinkle]

With the source of nuclear secrets being sold by Abdul Qadeer Khan giving credence to the validity of NK's nuke program, and yet another tale of North Korea's gov't keeping the concentration camps filled with their own citizens, this government can't been viewed as anything less than a growing threat to their neighbors (more hawkish types may use "imminent threat").

Certainly, the Bush Doctrine offers more merit to invade NK than Iraq, and this quote from Reuters certainly speaks to this administration's inconsistent foreign policy.

Critics said one problem with the Bush doctrine was that it was inconsistently applied. While attacking Iraq partly on the basis of intelligence which has now been proven to be faulty, the administration has pursued diplomacy towards North Korea, which has been actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

So, what are we waiting for? Do you think we lack the stomach? Or, should i just be patient, as our plan will reveal itself after the general elections?


EDIT TO ADD: #1 Google hit on "Bush Doctrine"

 

[derekbob]

Im betting North Korea is touchy because of China, and South Korea is in the most danger and they dont have any oil or anything to exploit.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by derekbob
Im betting North Korea is touchy because of China, and South Korea is in the most danger and they dont have any oil or anything to exploit.

Once again....

Tell me how we're exploiting the oil.


NK is different because of its relations with China for sure. I think that in Iraq, its a pretty cut and dry war...go in with the big guns, blow some stuff up...the military crumbles. North Korea's military, though not terribly advanced, and without a real air force is still a million men...a million well disciplined soldiers. So, whether we like it or not, they have more chips to bargain with than Iraq. Its just how the game is played. We're still preoccupied with Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror in the mideast right now. How much should we take on at one time?

 

[derekbob]

we invade them, usurp their leadership, destroy their infrastructure, and now were gonna charge them oil to rebuild their country. In my book thats exploitation

 

[LordOpie]

umm, no, this Admin is very consistent. Don't ask why YOU or ME or ANYONE wanted the US to invade Iraq, ask why this ADMIN wanted to invade and you'll see the consistency.

Next person to mention oil gets smacked with a trout.

One of the primary reasons was for a greater military presence in the middle-east.

We have a large force in Japan, really close to whatever we need to be close to there, so it's not like we need to invade for that reason.

Plus, I would not be the least bit surprised if Bush had the proper intelligence as to Iraq's WMDs and knew the invasion would be "easy"... invading NK would be far more difficult and have far greater reprecussions. NK might actually have significant WMDs. They claim to have two fully functional nukes that would level Japan.

Therefore, the risks don't justify the rewards.

Besides, NK is apparently more open to discussion than Iraq was.

 

[blue]

China wouldn't have much choice but to support the US during a US invasion of NK. However, if NK was the instigator (IE, they hucked a nuke somewhere) you can bet your balls on China invading from the North.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly



NK is different because of its relations with China for sure. I think that in Iraq, its a pretty cut and dry war...go in with the big guns, blow some stuff up...the military crumbles. North Korea's military, though not terribly advanced, and without a real air force is still a million men...a million well disciplined soldiers. So, whether we like it or not, they have more chips to bargain with than Iraq. Its just how the game is played. We're still preoccupied with Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror in the mideast right now. How much should we take on at one time?

So basically what you're saying is that Shrub and his lapdogs (Blair and Howard) are pussies. When there is a good chance of somebody fighting back effectively it's best to leave them alone even though the North Korean regime is arguably worse than Saddam. Is that it? Do you think the US et al should invade NK? I mean now that the WMD emperor was found not wearing clothes the rationale for last years middle east fun and games has morphed into "we were bringing democracy to Iraq". How about bringing some of that to NK too. Freedom is so important right, hasn't Shrub said something along the lines of "we'll do our utmost to spread freedom in this world". Well??? Come on, where is it???? I WANT FREEDOM, GIVE ME FREEDOM.
You guys are f*cken hypocrites

"In order to liberate this village it was necessary to kill everyone in it"

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by xbluethunderx
China wouldn't have much choice but to support the US during a US invasion of NK. However, if NK was the instigator (IE, they hucked a nuke somewhere) you can bet your balls on China invading from the North.

While China doesn't care for NK, they certainly don't want the US to have more of a foothold in the region.

 

[derekbob]

Opie, how could you say oil has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq??? We invaded for greater military presence?? If so, we need greater military presence to insure well get our fair share of oil. Wars are always fought for economic reasons. Politics, religion, anything else is just an excuse. War is robbery on a massive scale and there are little or no exceptions.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by derekbob
Opie, how could you say oil has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq???

I'm a bit tired. Maybe you could refresh my memory... when did I say oil had nothing to do with it?

Originally posted by derekbob
We invaded for greater military presence?? If so, we need greater military presence to insure...

ah, you're learning grasshopper

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
So basically what you're saying is that Shrub and his lapdogs (Blair and Howard) are pussies. When there is a good chance of somebody fighting back effectively it's best to leave them alone even though the North Korean regime is arguably worse than Saddam. Is that it? Do you think the US et al should invade NK? I mean now that the WMD emperor was found not wearing clothes the rationale for last years middle east fun and games has morphed into "we were bringing democracy to Iraq". How about bringing some of that to NK too. Freedom is so important right, hasn't Shrub said something along the lines of "we'll do our utmost to spread freedom in this world". Well??? Come on, where is it???? I WANT FREEDOM, GIVE ME FREEDOM.
You guys are f*cken hypocrites

"In order to liberate this village it was necessary to kill everyone in it"

Ok, first, yes. I am in favor of takng care of North Korea, one way or another. If you'd actually finish reading a post of mine you'd have seen that already. NOW we are a bit busy...but the time will come...believe it.....provided the powers that be continue to...uh...be.
For all intents and purposes, Iraq could have been nothing more than an upscaled drill for a "REAL" invasion should the need arise. Youll notice if you read much history that the US rarely goes more than 10 or so years without some sort of major conflict. Combat veterans in the higher ranks are a must for the motivation of younger troops. An army with no experience in battle wont be as effective. But dont get me wrong...Iraq was a just war. I still believe that...or as just as war can be.
Id love to see democracy everywhere in the world also, but its not like we could just invade China , or Russia or even North Korea easily....we do what we can when we can.
The time will come.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The time will come.

*cue score, by John Williams*







note: John Williams is the composer responsible for the themes to StarWars, Indiana Jones, ET, and every other Lucas/Spielberg epic

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Tell me how we're exploiting the oil.

Which oil is it that you claim not to be exploiting?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by derekbob
Opie, how could you say oil has nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq??? We invaded for greater military presence?? If so, we need greater military presence to insure well get our fair share of oil. Wars are always fought for economic reasons. Politics, religion, anything else is just an excuse. War is robbery on a massive scale and there are little or no exceptions.

Now that the US has pulled Iraq out of OPEC and the OPEC pricing structure it will be much cheaper..... what the US didn't pull Iraq out of OPEC and their price structure? Funny that hasn't happened. A big fat pipeline from Iraq to the US with all that oil bypassing OPEC pricing. Do you think that the US is going to get free oil? The US doesn't want cheap oil nor does OPEC it isn't in any of their best interests.

Even the oil contracts that have been awarded are infrastructure contracts not production contracts based solely on work completed and no percentage deals. It is a widely held belief that ultimately Iraqi oil will fall under the control of a State company similar to the structure of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Proceeds from the oil sales will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. OPEC has even signalled they will allow production quota exemptions to help do that. The only fly in the ointment here is that OPEC has been producing beyond their own quotas to make up the difference for the lack of Iraqi oil in the mix. Some members may balk at a more stringent set of production controls that maybe required with the addition of Iraqi oil.

In the end what this invasion and change of government Iraq will accomplish in regards to oil, is that it will place the oil in a more stable regime integrated into the OPEC structure. When all is said and done it will lead to a more stable world wide pricing structure.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Now that the US has pulled Iraq out of OPEC and the OPEC pricing structure it will be much cheaper..... what the US didn't pull Iraq out of OPEC and their price structure? Funny that hasn't happened. A big fat pipeline from Iraq to the US with all that oil bypassing OPEC pricing. Do you think that the US is going to get free oil? The US doesn't want cheap oil nor does OPEC it isn't in any of their best interests.

Even the oil contracts that have been awarded are infrastructure contracts not production contracts based solely on work completed and no percentage deals. It is a widely held belief that ultimately Iraqi oil will fall under the control of a State company similar to the structure of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Proceeds from the oil sales will pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. OPEC has even signalled they will allow production quota exemptions to help do that. The only fly in the ointment here is that OPEC has been producing beyond their own quotas to make up the difference for the lack of Iraqi oil in the mix. Some members may balk at a more stringent set of production controls that maybe required with the addition of Iraqi oil.

In the end what this invasion and change of government Iraq will accomplish in regards to oil, is that it will place the oil in a more stable regime integrated into the OPEC structure. When all is said and done it will lead to a more stable world wide pricing structure.

I'm not entirely sure of your views on oil in this thread (and I'm too stoopid/forgetful/lazy to check others) but as usual I'll butt in...

Just because the US/UK don't get free oil as a result of the war does not mean oil was not one of the major reasons for the invasion. (Ultimately money was probably a bigger factor but there is a strong link between the two anyhow). It remains to be seen how many things will be paid for under the 'reconstruction' banner also.

IMO the reason for invasion was to ensure that the US could control the supply of oil, the price is irrelevant (that's a whole other debate!). A friendlier Iraqi regime allows that to happen, alongside the friendly Saudi regime.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Just because the US/UK don't get free oil as a result of the war does not mean oil was not one of the major reasons for the invasion.

i'll agree as much to say what the control of oil represents: regional stability.

Originally posted by fluff
IMO the reason for invasion was to ensure that the US could control the supply of oil...

& IMO, the US controlling the oil would be a very bad policy decision. What reasonable ally would not call us into question? I believe it speaks more to my prev comment: don't let a bad guy control the region (via oil) in his quest for regional domination.

Originally posted by fluff
A friendlier Iraqi regime allows that to happen, alongside the friendly Saudi regime.

saudi doesn't seem too friendly to me, & i'm a guy. But i see your point: it's an unholy alliance.