North Korea begging to have the s*** bombed out of them.

First it was...."We will not stop until Osama is caught and his Afghanistan friends are punished."

Did we accomplish this?

Then it was. "Quick, we must war with Iraq...they're up to no good as Amuricans its a must"

Now its "Hey, look over there at that axis of Evil, N Korea...they must be punished"

Hell while we are on the "Cleanse the world of anyone who's government isnt similar to ours" why not finish all of them off. Theres still Cuba, and jeez arent the Chinese still a communist state. They must be an axis of Evil too. Funny, thing is that if we just stop for a second and think.....Does North Korea consider the US an "Axis of oppression" and does that warrant them to potentially invade us? I mean, hell if they say it must be true...right? And if in their mind its true, why would it be wrong for them to invade us but right for us to Bomb the shizzat out of them. Regardless of weather or not they are in the "right"....right is our governments "opinion" on what is right. If they are "right" in their minds then....why are they not intitled to Bomb the **** out of the US. Much like they have threatened to do if we touch foot on their land.

 

Actually, President Bush has a unique oppurtunity to take advantage of the situation.

Taking over Iraq could be a stepping stone to conquering the entire Middle East. That would provide us with the economic freedom to conquer central Europe. From there, the possilibites are endless. And American Empire could be established.

 

While american have fear everyday about these what so called evil country's military strength so they make up excuse to attak these country the same goes to these countrys n some groups in the middle east they are afraid of the countrys like uk n usa with its super military strength n all the nuclear weappons so they are paranoid too but they are no match in military strength or economy so they attack usa back in a sneaky non-conventional way . if u ask me i fear the usa military more n i find them more danger than any other what so called the axis of evil countries , just look at the usa military they are everywhere they are always at somebodys land. always fighting, now with a president like bush the ww3 is not too far away my friend.
look at things this way if u see these foreigh soldiers in your homeland or your area everyday u wont be too happy too like the us troops in middle east, in korea , in japan they are everywhere. maybe there is a reason for those troops to stay there but not everyone will agree n for sure alot of ppl do not like it.

 

When was the last time we 'seized' someone else's land?

We're in the Middle East because Saddam attacked Kuwait and they asked for our presence, and Saudi Arabia asked for our help, and our presence. We are in Korea and Japan as a result of World War Two and the subsequent threats from the Soviet Union and China. If you'll remember the North Koreans attacked South Korea, not the other way around. You can say its all how you look at it, but there are simple FACTS that are indisputable that rebute your points. You have nothing to fear from the US military unless you are a force for instability, famine, totalitarianism, and terror. The US military is in several places around the globe (the Middle East, Japan, S Korea) at the invitation of those governments, not by force. If you're worried about the US military then you really should ask why you have to fear it? No peaceful, stable, legitimate government need fear it.

 

again you guys jump to conclusions about bush...we've been talking about "the war in iraq" for months now...not one bullet has been fired...bush has led the charge for bringing in inspectors...it's a simple tool of negotiation...start high and you're more likely to get what you want...

to date...there is no war in iraq...there is no war in korea...

and in fact, the administration is on record as saying they wish to resolve this through diplomatic means.

 

Hmmmmmmmm.

The only problem with what you wrote is that the US gets to decide (capriciously in some instances) what "peaceful", "stable", and "legitimate" mean.

 

I think you mean the only 'potential' problem. So far I find it laughable that people are coming to the defense of Iraq and North Korea. When we launch a war on France cause they're wine is overpriced or on Australia cause they keep stomping the English in the Ashes, you might have a point. Until then its just a red herring.

 

Panama!!!

 

American station their army in n korea n japan for whatever reason is bunch of bull**** to me , why , n korea today trying to make a nuclear bomb is no different than china yesterday. both communist country both threaten to attack ther other side (mainland vs taiwan) why no us troops is in taiwan now??!! cuz they usa cant bully china now china is too strong to bully around like korea or iraq. the chinese leaader mao said before without the 2 bombs n 1 satellite the chinese will have power n get no respect in the world, this is very true when u look at india.
the case with north korea is no different than china before except that back then there was a ussr backing up china n china was too large n populated for the usa to attack. what happan in korea was just a civil war like the war in china too ,the nationalist asked usa for help too then stilll lost the war n flee to taiwan, then eventually the usa betrayed the taiwan side for not reconngize taiwan side as china n a country anymore, why all this is happaning cuz china is no iraq , china was very strong so the usa back up even tho they hate communism. this proof the american is a bully , they see a stronger country they can't beat they back off they see no oil in vietnam they eventually back off n betrayed the south vietnam government.
and one more things is those are civil war americans shouldnt get in to other country's internal ' business even one of the side ask for ur troops. the usa send in troops becuz they hate communism look at things this way if it was the communist side that was losing do u honestly think the amercian will send help to this side??!!

 

Not sure who you could find that thought the Noreiga government was legitimate. Nor that the elected government that followed is illegitimate. Not to mention the return of control of the Panama Canal was not required by the original treaty under which we built the canal, but we did it anyway to serve the best interests of the Panamanian people in 1999. It is important to realize that Noriega ignored the results of the Panamanian elections and held power by force. That would clearly indicate to me, at least, that it was an illegitimate government: both by domestic and international standards.

In any case I don't think a Panama situation would fall under the 'Bush Doctrine' in terms of US action since that policy framework concentrates on 'rogue states.' "...rogue states have three characteristics: 1. they possess or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them; 2. they are recognized as state sponsors of international terrorism or harbor known terrorists or terrorist organizations; and 3. they have acted to destabilize the international system via proliferation, terrorism, or the threat or use of armed force."

In contrast to the military option, more recently than Panama there..."are two cases where the United States actively promoted elections in hostile states that then dropped their hostility. Nicaraguan elections in 1991 removed the then anti-American Sandinista regime of Daniel Ortega and the 2000 Yugoslav elections (and the popular enforcement of the results) deposed Slobodan Milosevic. Domestic factors largely created conditions conducive for elections, but the United States played a supporting role. Both Ortega and Milosevic suffered a dramatic loss of legitimacy arising from a combination of failing to halt domestic violence, abusing human and civil rights, rising foreign criticism, and increasing economic decline. Both presidents in a fit of hubris then sought to restore legitimacy via elections, which they incorrectly believed they would easily win. The U.S. role centered on pro-democracy and pro-civil rights propaganda. The message singled out the abuses of the two leaders, who were continually challenged to hold elections. In each case, neighboring governments followed the U.S. lead and urged Ortega and Milosevic to resort to the ballot box." In both cases the US had support of neighboring countries and in both cases those illegitimate governments were taken down.

I also think it is important to remember that each country has its own agenda, which includes expanding its own sphere of influence. And that they see this as a zero-sum game vis-a-vis US influence. Two such cases would be the EU and the PRC. To think that their criticism necessarily comes from some altruistic motive is naive at best. Especially when we are talking about dangerous regimes such as in Iraq and North Korea.

 

technically isn't the war in Korea still on hold? Just a cease fire right?

 

stalemate resulting in a cease fire,...true!

 

i think you know what i mean...

 

Well, you can deny history if you want, but that is the reason US troops are in Japan and S Korea. They originally were there as a result of WWII and continued to be there as a result of requests from Japan and S Korea.

Apparently you are not aware that even the PRC does not want N Korea to have nuclear weapons. And apparently you are not aware that the N Korean dictatorship is no more legitimate than the reign of Mao during the Cultural Revolution.

That's funny since we still guarantee Taiwan's security in the face of PRC aggression. Although it would be silly for us to invade the mainland in the face of 1 billion + Chinese, there is no doubt we are more than a match for the PLA as seen when the 7th Fleet entered the Taiwan Straits in '95 and the PRC backed down.

No doubt obtaining nuclear weapons changed the power equation for both India and the PRC. However it would be foolhardy to suggest that every country, especially dictatorships, should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

Actually the cases of N Korea and the PRC are drastically different. Mao had domestic support and built his movement indigenously far before receiving Soviet support. N Korea was built BY the Soviets through agreements post WWII. The N Korean dictatorship simply does not enjoy the support of the people it is starving to death.

The US government backed out of Vietnam because it lost domestic support to continue the support of the S. Vietnamese regime. However, I'll remind you that the PRC INVADED the same N Vietnam in 1979, got their noses bloodied, and withdrew. Sound familiar.

Yes we hate communism. No doubt about that. And for good reason. Ask anyone who was a victim of communism in the Soviet Gulags or the PRCs cultural revolution and you'll figure out why. The only reason the PRC is just now taking its rightful place as a world power is because visionaries like Deng started to move away from communism and toward capitalism. While you may thinks it is the best course to stand by and not interfere in other countries problems, that stick your head in the sand policy NEVER works, and the problems almost always escalate outside the original boundaries of the conflict. In the case of N Korea specifically I have pointed out the implications of a nuclear armed N Korea (a rearmed Japan and a nuclear S Korea) neither of which would YOU find favorable if I miss my guess.

The sad thing is that the American people have always felt a unique bond with the Chinese people. Teddy Roosevelt, for example, insisted the Japanese and Soviets should not be able to annex Manchuria. The US later actively supported the Chinese people against Japanese aggression. Because we knew the destructive nature of communism we supported the Nationalists against Mao, and while that may not have been the optimal course of action, the Cultural Revolution is an example of exactly what we wanted to prevent. We fought openly with the PRC when they too intervened in the Korean conflict, a conflict I will remind you that pitted the PRC and N Korea against the UNITED NATIONS, not the UNITED STATES. In spite of that later Nixon went to China to try and bring our countries back together, and was modestly successful in doing so. Now that the PRC is entering the global capitalist community (as in the WTO etc) it is time for people like you to let go of your Maoist endoctrination. You have not to fear from the American people unless you seek conflict with us.

 

Well duh! I can't give you a hard time? What is the world coming to???

 

Good post, Mr. HayesStreet.

Not sure who you could find that thought the Noreiga government was legitimate.

I did not find Noriega to be legitimate, per say. Nor did I mind that much when Bush cleaned up his own PR mess by grabbing Noriega. But my perspective is clearly that of an American.

By Central American standards, Noriega was legit. And that was the point of my reply. Bush Sr. determined Noriega's legitimacy. I can see Panamanians (sp?) finding that to be another example of US arrogance.

BTW, whereas I do not think the case has been made by Bush Jr that Iraq needs immediate fixin', North Korea is a different story. Their WMD programs are not in dispute. And their ruler is a complete nut job.

My preference would be for the Bush Jr Admin to focus more on solving the North Korea problem (with the help of PRC, Russia, and South Korea) than changing regimes in Iraq.

 

of course you can!!! i was just making sure my point was clear...

 

Everything u said is bull**** to me too sorry to say that, i post my thought here just to let some amercian know a point of view form an non american. Yes i know u n america hate communism but this doent mean u are right . what happan in china ussr cuba doesnt mean communism is wrong even tho maybe all the communist country seen to fail. its is the leader , the government that is wrong , the idea of communism is not that bad , i am pretty sure the philisopher ( i think is marx ) who creat this idea wasnt intend for the people to suffer but for people to have better life n equal share. i am not a communist becuz i believe in God but i dunt agree that hating communism is right i dunt think communism is evil.
i know why american retreat vietnam cuz too many soildiers die this is what american should get for getting into other 's business, n when the american retreat they jsut lost all the creditabilty. And do u agree what amrican government did to the south vietnam n the taiwan government is right??!! what happaned exactly proof amercian governemt is a bully n hyportie, u cant deny that. amerrican should stop thinking they the world police the righteous man everythin they do is holy n right .
and do u honestly think the pla will back down if they decided to attack taiwan becuz of the 7th fleet, if u do u are naive. all that was happanig in 95 was a show.
Now about n korea whethere they are allow to make a nuclear bomb or not shouldnt be american's business. china was an enemy to the usa back in the 60's they made a nuclear weapoon why usa didnt do **** , china n ussr in all ways was much larger threat in the 60's n 70's than iraq or all the axis of evil put toghethr to the america why they didnt send in troops or do the things they are doing to iraq , n korea today!!!??? although i honestly dunt want government like n korea or iraq to have nuclear weapoons i dunt want nuclear weapoons to exist anyways but i dunt agree this give the american's right to attack these countries.

 

different people in different circumstances produce different results....but a government can be judged by its likelihood to lead to tyranny. communism, as we've seen it implemented around the world, has done just that. stalin and mao are the classic examples of abuse of power stemming from a communist state. and the results are nothing short of a nightmare...they're absolutely horrific.

keep in mind, the western way of thinking on government comes primarily from enlightenment thinkers...and our own founding fathers who bent over backawards to place checks and balances in the system to insure that the government doesn't become so powerful that it runs over the individual. we value individualism more than eastern cultures...that's the frame of reference.