Vote on N Korea sanctions delayed (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6046250.stm

Will President Bush be compelled by the Veto of Russia and China to weaken UN sanctions against NK.

It seems that President Bush's administration is being hamstrung by both Russia and China in relation to US desires concerning NK and Iran, does this indicate that his 8 year administration is and will in future be viewed as the biggest mistake the American electorate have made in the last century?

Comments please!

 

[Gibberish]

It seems that President Bush's administration is being hamstrung by both Russia and China in relation to US desires concerning NK and Iran, does this indicate that his 8 year administration is and will in future be viewed as the biggest mistake the American electorate have made in the last century?

Dramatic much?

China and Russia are trying to be cautious because they border N. Korea and are in Nuke range. I'd be cautious too if I was standing next to a wack-job holding a nuke.

The US thinks N. Korea will step down after alittle bullying. The problem is the world is not united with America (meaning do everything we request) as Bush and his admin would like us to think.

 

[ProudAmerican]

damnit they need to hurry up.

I mean hell, sanctions work......just look at Iraq......it only too 3 resolutions over 4 years.......ummmm, no wait.....

it only took 6 resolutions over 7 years........no wait......

it only too 9 resolutions over 10 years.......ummmm, no wait......


it only took 11 resolutions over 12 years........no wait......

thats right , it was SEVENTEEN FREAKIN RESOLUTIONS OVER TWELVE FREAKIN YEARS..........

so at that pace......NK has at LEAST ANOTHER DECADE before they have to be concerned.

 

[Gibberish]

thats right , it was SEVENTEEN FREAKIN RESOLUTIONS OVER TWELVE FREAKIN YEARS..........

so at that pace......NK has at LEAST ANOTHER DECADE before they have to be concerned.

Let's take the Iraq example from all sides.

Since resolutions don't work we should just invade them, overthrow their government, and allow the people to elect a new government. We see how fast that worked in Iraq, no one could be happier...oh wait.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Let's take the Iraq example from all sides.

Since resolutions don't work we should just invade them, overthrow their government, and allow the people to elect a new government. We see how fast that worked in Iraq, no one could be happier...oh wait.

So what exactly is your option... Cover your eyes and ears and hope it all goes away? The UN and UN resolutions DON'T work... Everyone pretty much knows that already. And obviously you feel that invading or force is not the answer.... So what is?

Of course the question is has to be asked..... You obviously consider Iraq a failure, even with the positives. How long do you think turning an entire country around in the worst region on the globe should take? Were you willing to give it a couple weeks, or maybe a month.

 

[Goobieman]

Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6046250.stm

Will President Bush be compelled by the Veto of Russia and China to weaken UN sanctions against NK.

It seems that President Bush's administration is being hamstrung by both Russia and China in relation to US desires concerning NK and Iran, does this indicate that his 8 year administration is and will in future be viewed as the biggest mistake the American electorate have made in the last century?

Comments please!

Comment:

You'll be getting a response form Caine, whining about your partisan bickering, and how you've done nothing but brought yet another thread down to uselessness.

 

[Gibberish]

So what exactly is your option... Cover your eyes and ears and hope it all goes away? The UN and UN resolutions DON'T work... Everyone pretty much knows that already. And obviously you feel that invading or force is not the answer.... So what is?

It's not my job create an option, this is why I vote for officals to do this job. Resolutions don't work and either does invasion. Perhaps they should try to find a new option and stop relying on failed ones?

Of course the question is has to be asked..... You obviously consider Iraq a failure, even with the positives. How long do you think turning an entire country around in the worst region on the globe should take? Were you willing to give it a couple weeks, or maybe a month.

There are positives and also negatives. According to the current admin when trying to get America to OK the invasion it was going to take a few weeks or perhaps a few months. Truth was not a good option politically.

What would the result on American's approval on the invasion if Rumsfeld said:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six months, six years. I doubt it will be quick.

Instead of:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

 

[ProudAmerican]

It's not my job create an option, this is why I vote for officals to do this job. Resolutions don't work and either does invasion. Perhaps they should try to find a new option and stop relying on failed ones?

you cant make the claim that invasions dont work. it completely depends on what the objective is.

I submit that an all out military attack BEFORE NK gets useable long range nukes WOULD ABSOLUTELY work at preventing them from getting such.

however, the case can CERTAINLY be made that diplomacy doesnt work. thats what we have been doing with NK since Clinton was in office.

 

[Gibberish]

I submit that an all out military attack BEFORE NK gets useable long range nukes WOULD ABSOLUTELY work at preventing them from getting such.

So we should invade NK simply to stop them from achieving technology. Once we do that then what? Lets says we have just invaded N. Korea, in doing so have most likely killed thousands of it's citizens, overthrown it's government, and left the country in shambles.

Do we just walk away? I mean our objective is complete; they aren't going to get missile technology now.

 

[ProudAmerican]

So we should invade NK simply to stop them from achieving technology.

Im not using the term "invade" but you can if you like.

we SHOULD ABSOLUTELY PREVENT THEM from achieving this technology whatever it takes.

 

[Gibberish]

Im not using the term "invade" but you can if you like.

we SHOULD ABSOLUTELY PREVENT THEM from achieving this technology whatever it takes.

If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion. You can call it whatever you want to make it sounded better or make you sleep better but duck is a duck.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion. You can call it whatever you want to make it sounded better or make you sleep better but duck is a duck.

nope. our goal can be achieved without invading and putting boots on the ground.

and believe me, I sleep just fine at night.

Its American civilians I care about......as long as they are safe.....im a happy camper.

 

[Gibberish]

our goal can be achieved without invading and putting boots on the ground.

I agree, but are those in charge smart enough to find away that works or are they going to stick to the classic methods which fail everytime?

We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

 

[Goobieman]

If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion.

So, Bill Clinton invaded Iraq in December 1998. Right?

 

[Kandahar]

Sanctions = Bad bad bad idea.

Why would we want to do something like that to help prop up Kim's regime?

 

[Gibberish]

So, Bill Clinton invaded Iraq in December 1998. Right?

If he sent US military into Iraq to take control of Iraq land then yes he did. Attacking a country from a distance and not stepping into the country is not invasion, it is aggression.

 

[Goobieman]

If he sent US military into Iraq to take control of Iraq land then yes he did. Attacking a country from a distance and not stepping into the country is not invasion, it is aggression.

That sounds significantly different than what you originally said.
YOU said:
If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion.

So, airstrikes, missile strikes, raids by ground troops, etc, would not qualify as an invasion. Right?

 

[Gibberish]

That sounds significantly different than what you originally said.
YOU said:
If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion.

So, airstrikes, missile strikes, raids by ground troops, etc, would not qualify as an invasion. Right?

"If we use military action to go into their country without their permission, it is invasion."

I'll elaborate what "going into their country" means:
If we are stepping foot in their country or taking control of their land we are invading.

If we are targeting areas for destruction while not taking control or attempting to take control of that area or any area in the country we are attacking.

It's really quite simple. If you need further clarification consult your dictionary.

Air strikes and missile strikes can be a form of attack, or an aid in invasion. Ground troops are invasion.