Vergeet Irak, focus op Noord Korea.

maar heb blijkt wel weer dat massavernietegings wapens niet de enige reden is achter de mogelijke oorlog tegen irak.

Als Amerika besluit aan te vallen zullen ze net als in de jaren 50 een geweldig pak op de broek krijgen. Ze zullen denk ik wel winnen (als China zich er buiten houdt) maar ten koste van een boel verliezen.

Bij Irak is dat risico iets minder en is de buit beter, veel olie. Noord-Korea heeft niks.

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 19:44 schreef Marden het volgende:
Er is stond in de krant dat als Amerika, Irak aanvalt dan valt Noord Korea, Zuid Korea aan.

---

Irak : ongetrainde, niet gecamoufleerde "burgers", bijna geen conditie,
AKA 17 geweren.
Amerika: Getrainde, gecamoufleerde militairen, conditie als een paard
met M16 - geweren.

Irak die kan alleen het land zelf aanvallen.
Dan zijn wel de burgers de dupe. Wat zeer lullig voor hun is.

[Dit bericht is gewijzigd door Marden op 12-02-2003 19:51]

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 19:50 schreef Marden het volgende:
Irak : ongetrainde, niet gecamoufleerde "burgers", bijna geen conditie,
AKA 17 geweren.
Amerika: Getrainde, gecamoufleerde militairen, conditie als een paard
met M16 - geweren.

---

Als ik jou was zou ik het eerder zoeken in de enorme technische voorsprong die Amerika heeft, t'is maar een ideetje hoor.

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 19:51 schreef Poepoog het volgende:
Heeft Noord Korea olie dan?

---

Alleen wat boerderijen ... niet interessant dus.

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 19:58 schreef Sorcerer8472 het volgende:
Het is gewoon vreselijk om te zien hoe Amerika nu zo makkelijk een oorlog gaat winnen... zo onnodig mensen doodmaken... en maar door blijven slaan, want het gaat om enduring freedom...

---

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 19:59 schreef GEsTOoRD het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk niet dat geweren, camouflage of conditie doorslaggevend zijn.

Als ik jou was zou ik het eerder zoeken in de enorme technische voorsprong die Amerika heeft, t'is maar een ideetje hoor.

---

Want denk ook wel dat er echt geen overdreven verzet is van het leger!, bedoel tuurlijk zijn er wel gevechten enzo maar dat duurt niet zo heel lang dus zal maar klein percentage in reallife combat terecht komen

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 21:05 schreef Chadi het volgende:
Denk je nou echt dat er ook maar 1 amerikaanse kogel op noord korea wordt geschoten? ... hehehe Ze weten dat ze een Nuke op hun dak kunnen krijgen dan zijn ze opeens een stuk diplomatieker hoor.

---

The question is on everyone's mind: Why is President Bush rushing into war with Iraq yet hanging loose on North Korea? Why is pre-emptive attack necessary against a country that's crawling with U.N. inspectors while nonchalant containment suffices against the world's most insular, ruthless regime, which is also openly building long-range missiles and atom bombs? Kim Jong-il's winter-solstice pop-up surprise has certainly put Bush in an awkward box. With the U.N. inspectors reporting to the Security Council by the end of the month (and, not coincidentally, U.S. troops by then fully mobilized), this should be a time for Bush to tie up loose ends, shore up the leery, and convey a clarity of purpose. Instead, even his most stalwart allies are starting to wonder about his priorities.

In fact, there are reasons for favoring military confrontation with Iraq but not with North Koreasome of them are even good reasonsbut most of them can't easily be discussed in public, not by officials anyway, without setting off further contradictions and alarm bells.

The most basic of these reasons is this: We're going to war against Iraq because we can; we're not going to war against North Korea because we can't. News reports have quoted officials hinting at this on background, but it would be a dicey argument for them to spell out. First, it's a bit too stark for comfort, given all the moral argumentation undergirding the mobilization. Members of the Bush administration don't want to say, in effect, "Let's enforce international law, topple tyrants, and keep terrible weapons out of bad men's handsbut only if the bad man can't beat us up too badly in the process." Second, to make this argument would acknowledge that Saddam Hussein probably doesn't have weapons of mass destructionor not enough of them to do much damage. If Bush believed Saddam really did have vast, usable stockpiles of these weapons, would he be so keen to start a war, knowing (as CIA Director George Tenet testified in congressional hearings last year) that Saddam would likely set off as many of them as he could, like a suicide bomber writ large, as his regime started to crumble under the invasion?

Of course, the argument could be made that North Korea shows what could happen if Saddam is not toppled and proceeds to build these weapons himself. We are essentially being deterred by Kim Jong-il. Do we want to sit around for a few years so Saddam Hussein can also deter us and use his own arsenal as a protective cover for aggression?

One reason Bush can't make this argument is that the rationale for going to war, at least under the terms of the U.N. resolution, is the false statements and omissions that Saddam Hussein has made about his nuclear-, biological-, and chemical-weapons programsin other words, the possibility that he has such weapons. You can say we're going to war because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You can say we're going to war to keep him from developing weapons of mass destruction. You can't really say both at the same time.

Another problem with this line of argument is that, if sheer practicality were the rationale for attacking Iraq and dealing in some other way with North Korea, other leaders, especially those who might run up against our interests, would gain a valuable lesson from this exhibitionthat is, the best way to avoid an American attack is to get yourself an atom bomb, quickly and secretly (maybe you can buy one from North Korea).

There are other equally awkward reasons that might support invading Baghdad but not Pyongyang. Oil is an obvious factornot so much in a crudely Marxian sense as in a general sense that everything in Middle Eastern politics is wrapped up, to some degree, in oil. U.S. officials tend to avoid mentioning this factor, in part to avoid appearing overly pecuniary, but in much larger part to avoid explicitly entangling the issue of Iraq with precisely those larger issues of Middle Eastern politicsthose issues being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the future of Saudi Arabia.

The latter issue constitutes an additional unstated argument for invading Iraq. Though few officials speak of it, even off the record, there is a train of thought, in certain quarters of the Pentagon and the State Department, that large numbers of U.S. soldiers should not remain based in Saudi Arabia for much longer. Our military presence provides a handy target for terrorists (rhetorically, if not physically) and aligns us too tightly with a corrupt kingdom from which we might wisely begin to seek distance. However, it would be unsafe and unsettling, for the entire region, to pull out of Saudi Arabia while Saddam Hussein is still in power. Saddam must go so that we can go. This may be the best rationale for "regime change" in Iraq, although, for obvious reasons, you will never hear any official articulate it. This rationale also marks Iraq as a unique case, which therefore allows North Korea to be considered as a unique case as well. Which means policy in one place doesn't necessarily have anything to do with policy in the other placethough it would be nice, in each place, if Bush did present a coherent policy.

Bron

quote:

---

Of course, the argument could be made that North Korea shows what could happen if Saddam is not toppled and proceeds to build these weapons himself. We are essentially being deterred by Kim Jong-il. Do we want to sit around for a few years so Saddam Hussein can also deter us and use his own arsenal as a protective cover for aggression?

---

quote:

---

Op donderdag 13 februari 2003 10:56 schreef Ludwig het volgende:
Vergeet niet dat de bevolking daar sterk geindoctrineerd wordt...

---

quote:

---

Op donderdag 13 februari 2003 11:17 schreef Frutsel het volgende:
persoonlijk denk ik dat de Zaak rond Noord Korea veel meer aandacht zou moeten vergen dan de kwestie Irak. Tis dat d'r in NK geen olie zit... Maar ut zou daar wel eens veel fataler kunnen aflopen met die Chinezen in de buurt....

---

quote:

---

Op woensdag 12 februari 2003 20:06 schreef Johnny_Walker het volgende:

[..]

Tja, er moet iets gedaan worden tegen Saddam, om te voorkomen dat het allemaal niet erger wordt. Maarja, Saddam werkt niet mee en doet niet zo erg z'n best om te laten zien waar hij z'n wapens verstopt heeft.

---

http://www.truthaboutwar.org