North Korea

I like the "independent thinking challenged Bush supporters", especially since you have so many links to other people's writings without one word of your own thoughts about the subject.

No apology accepted, Ken, without retraction.

 

Ken,

I know you were away for a while, wanted to give you another chance to answer the questions I posed in my last post here.

 

Wow Ken, you sure got all these warmongers upset!

 

Where have the Korean terrorists struck?

 

I don't know if I should post since I'm not a "warmonger."

When you already have nukes, it's a different story. If you know your 12 year old son is planning to buy drugs, you take different steps than you would if he were already hooked on drugs.
Also, North Korea doesn't believe it has a mandate from God to terrorize whoever doesn't look or talk like them. Besides, we have some pretty big bulldogs over there that want to keep NK in check as badly as we do. We don't have that in Iran.

 

Moving this to the Politics Forum where since there is no News Link in the OP.

LE

 

I think the risks and benefits are different for North Korea than for Iran. Every situation has to be weighed against the risks verses benefits and whether or not other efforts short of war can yield results. I'm not eager to fight any war but some make more sense than others. If any become necessary for our nation's defense and other means don't seem to work then I'm ready for us to take on that enemy regardless who they are. There's no desire for war in that kind of thinking - just a willingness to do what has to be done. Let us not forget that we fought a long hard war in Korea already and continue a military presence there today to help keep things even. It's not that we haven't done nor wouldn't do what was needed there. North Korea is dangerous but it seems to understand its limitations and other means seem to be working. They merit being watched. The situation could change. Iran is dangerous but seems motivated by blind hatred beyond any comprehension of the consequences to itself. They merit being closely watched. The situation is changing.

 

The DOD is already revamping the plans for military action, I heard yesterday.

Of course, I must say I predicted Iran or Syria would be next, a long time ago. Strange, that once you know what the major players (on all sides) are up to, it is all very easily predictable.

 

The left is succeeding in smoothering our military's awesome power. They are positioning us to have to sustain a strike by the enemy, before allowing action. And that could cost a million lives or more.

GWB and increasingly, any President will think twice before attacking anyone, without signed documents allowing it, from every congressman, their wives and first of kin. That of course will allow plenty of time for the N. Koreans, Irani's, etc. to proceed on their own timetable.

Those are traitorous liberals. That is my definition for use in this thread.

 

KenH,

No. No. And no.

Then why do you seem to be bemoaning the fact that the Administration hasn't chosen to attack NK?

 

Correction, Ken, you weren't talking about the Administration, you were talking about the "warmongers" here. But the question remains, why were you then bemoaning the fact that the "warmongers" aren't encouraging us to attack North Korea when you agree we shouldn't either?