North Korea

I concur, Ken. I guess because they're communists instead of Muslims, it's okay.

 

Ken I find your entire behavior interesting…

What is your definition of a warmonger and who on this board are you referring to as a warmonger?

North Korea has been discussed. I think it would be beneficial if people such as yourself could actually discuss the topic of a thread instead of sidetracking it to divert attention. So I applaud you in your attempt with this thread. If your true intent is to discuss North Korea perhaps you should start a thread that focuses on North Korea, instead of starting a thread about warmongers on the Baptist Board and how they post more about Iran than North Korea. It seems a bit juvenile.

JohnV you would concur with just about anything…

 

I'm not worried about NK using nuclear weapons, unless their leaders come to believe that the very survival of their nation is at stake. I am concerned about their use of that technology to earn hard currency, through sales to rogue states or terrorist groups.

I am concerned, however, about Iran using them, because the leaders of that nation have apocalyptic beliefs that would be advanced by attacking Israel. MAD doctrine doesn't deter madmen, it only deters sane men. They will also spread that technology (as they promised recently), and that aspect is harder to contain than NK is. NK has a land border with China and SK only; Iran has porous borders on all sides. I think that we can more easily contain the spread of this tech from NK than we can that of Iran.

I'm not happy about NK have nuclear weapons, but Iran is the more serious threat.

I am probably one of the "warmongers" referred to, but I dispute that. I personally hate war, have lost family members to war, and suffer great pain daily because of war. It's just that we have been under attack since 1993, and I am a proponent of "aggressive defense". Most, if not all, military members I know hate warefare, but are prepared to fight to preserve western civilization. It really isn't warmongering.

Labels don't bother me.

 

Ken. Nice. You are reduced to name-calling. Very mature.

Right now, I don't see N. Korea vowing to wipe another country off the map. I don't see Koreans with signs saying "death to America".

If you have any, perhaps you could put your disdain for the folks who you used to agree with, and put some up.

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Ken,

I find it interesting that the warmongers among us on this board that are so eager to bomb Iran

Care to name names? A "if the shoe fits" dodges the question as to whether there are any at all and whether, instead, your post simply is irresponsible name-calling to label as "war-monger" people who are not in fact so.

 

Who are the "warmongers" of whom you speak? I don't remember anyone eargerly advocating that we bomb Iran.

Maybe my memory is just faulty.

Names?

 

elijah_lives has answered. We have yet to hear from Bunyon.

Other than calling your fellow board members childish names, what is the purpose of this thread?

What is the answer you are really looking for in respect to N. Korea? The whole thread looks like some kind of setup to make your point. I'll bet you can make it without applying your 'warmonger" label to others.

So, why don't you lay it on the line. Don't keep us in suspense any longer. Maybe we can have some debate without the derogatory labels.

 

Posting Rules:

4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated . The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. ...

Could it be that KenH has forgotten the rules? Why personally attack a BB member with the use of such a pejorative term?

 

I'm not offended, Kenh, just puzzled. You can't see a difference between Iran and NK? One has threatened to wipe another nation off the face off the earth, the other is more than likely simply interested in surviving as a nation. What is intent to you? What is proof? By your stated standards, Israel would be destroyed before you'd accept Iran as a threat. That's too late. To show intent, Iran would have to use it.

If Iran was genuinely interested in developing nuclear energy, and not nuclear weapons, than it would not have gone to the length that it has to harden and conceal the "research" sites there; instead, it is doing everything possible to raise the alarm bells not just here in the USA, but in the moderate states of the Middle East, Russia, and China, as well as the EU.

Do you remember Beruit? And the fingerprints of Iran all over it? We are already in a state of war with them, based on an act of war promulgated by Iran.

Iran could diffuse this crisis in a minute, if it wanted to.

 

Simple point. Those that are eager to bomb Iran NOW(which doesn't have nuclear weapons) are inconsistent since they are not equally advocating bombing North Korea NOW(which does have nuclear weapons and is widely regarded as a rogue state). </font>[/QUOTE]Is it your contention that nuclear capability is the only reason?

 

Questions?

Sure, lots of them.

Take military action off the table as an option?

Not a chance.

 

Ken,

I find it interesting that the warmongers among us on this board that are so eager to bomb Iran are not showing the same eagerness to bomb North Korea. By all accounts North Korea already has several nuclear weapons and could pretty much wipe out the tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and the city of Seoul at any point. And the North Korean leader is even worse than the blusterous Iranian leader.

Ken, are you saying that we should attack North Korea instead or are you saying that neither should be attacked?

If NK is attacked instead, surely you are aware of the military danger that they pose. If any of their nukes survive, they still represent a clear threat to South Korea. If not, they still represent a threat to South Korea with the conventional weapons they possess. An attack on North Korea will have to involve far more than taking out their reactors or nuclear program.

If neither should be attacked, my question to you is when? Do we wait until they get to such a position as North Korea? Ken, it is simply a matter of measuring our capability vs. theirs, as well as the level of threat. It is an extremely simplistic comparison to imply that we should instead go after the greater threat. Let us also keep in mind that this has in fact been considered and obviously ruled out. We may very well rue that decision. At what point do you think we should have done so against North Korea?

I apologize to anyone who is offended by my choice of term.

Thank you. It has become a pattern, however, like "Bush bootlickers".