subaruguru

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...rea/index.html

I'm willing to vote for Kerry now if he'll send me some of what he's smoking.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

...I don't understand what you're faulting Kerry for here...he said that if he became president, we would do whatever is neccesary to cool the situation in NKorea. If that means a preemptive strike, ok, if it means bilateral talks, ok. If that means having bilateral talks AND 6 way talks (which is what Kerry was saying he wanted most of all), that sounds awesome to me. Bush's opinion, that bilateral talks between the US and NKorea would make China run and hide, is rediculous. Bilateral talks DO NOT exclude the option for multi-way talks. If you think they do, then you are a pawn in Bush's game. The article you link to doesn't even have an anti-Kerry point, so I'm not sure why you think he's smoking anything...we all know Bush is the one most likely to posses illegal substances. Sniff Sniff Sniff...

subaruguru

Bi-lateral talks most certainly will destroy the six party talks. If you think they won't, then you're not a pawn of anyone...you just don't know anything about the situation. The whole reason the Six party talks are happening is that China sees it as a way to establish its authority in the region; by being the key to US relations with North Korea, China sets itself up as the go-to man for Asia. Now how do you think China is going to view its position if the US side-steps it and goes to North Korea directly?

Now, as for pre-emptive strike...this is either utterly empty rhetoric meant to show that Kerry is tough (ie, a lie), or it's insane. There is absolutely no reasonable read of the situation that shows a pre-emptive strike would cool anything down. A war with North Korea will make you nostalgic for the good old baghdad days. It would also give the greatest chance of you and I getting drafted. I would volunteer for the worst in Falluja ANY DAY before risking getting sent to a war in North Korea.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Kerry will probably wave a white flag and surrender. He's such a gomer pile.

Unregistered

Yeah the guy that volunteered to go to war is the one that would surrender. Yeah you make A LOT of sense.... yeah really come on now don't be Hell a dumb. The one more like out of the two to run and hide is Bush. Sheesh if he broke a nail he would cry to his mom that ***** ****ing ******. Don't insult a vet that actually went into conflict.

What Kerry was saying is that he will try every avenue possible before he does a preemptive strike. (In layman terms.) In other words he won't pull the blunder that Bush did with Iraq. What a hard concept to grasp.

Also I would be a lot more AFRAID of going to war with N. Korea if Bush is still president than if Kerry is president.

BlingBlingBlue

Because it would be a real war...which is why Bush is afraid of them. He has good reason to be afraid of them. Like someone already said, China wants to be the "go-to" man in Asia. The Chinese are far more dangerous than the puppet government the United States set up in Baghdad, and everyone in the world knows it. Iraq was a red herring, people. A red herring which alienated us from our allies which we will need when Asia decides to flex her muscle.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Asia aint gonna flex ****. Those bastards need us around so they can continue to steal our technology and jobs. If it weren't for the $$ they get with us around, they would have already destroyed us with the military secrets Clinton and Gore sold them.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Kerry voted to ****-can half our friken arsenal... what are we going to use to fight them? Chop sticks?

Unregistered

HellaDumb do you wear a tin foil cap or something? Im seriously thinking you must.

Your kidding if you think the US would be defeneseless against N. Korea. We spend way more than any other country on it. Unless the army has tons of gold plated toilets I seriously doubt that we would be defenseless.

I don't know about you, but I think Kerry would have a plan to go to war and see it through. Unlike our present president who thought the war in Iraq ended months ago. On top of that he really had no exist strategy.

subaruguru

Please, for the love of God, before you support a Kerry fight-North-Korea plan, do a search on scenarios for the potential aftermath. Defenseless, no, but even if China didn't enter such a war, it would be a disaster. The blow to the Asian economy by having South Korea torn to shreds (which is a certainty) could cause depression for years to come. That's on top of the enormous expenditure of manpower and resources in the actual fighting.

Blingbling is right, the situation is touchy in Asia. But Iraq isn't a diversion....the only answer in asia is to not have a war. A war there is guaranteed global catastrophe. So, if you do recognize that for what it is...potential disaster...I hope you will NOT support John Kerry when he says nutty things like "I'd do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea to disarm it."

Whatever your position on Bush's Iraq war, he's right to keep the six party talks going and to rule war with North Korea entirely out of the question.

t-wrexxx

iTrader: (1)

[QUOTE=subaruguru]
Blingbling is right, the situation is touchy in Asia. But Iraq isn't a diversion....the only answer in asia is to not have a war. A war there is guaranteed global catastrophe. So, if you do recognize that for what it is...potential disaster...I hope you will NOT support John Kerry when he says nutty things like "I'd do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea to disarm it."

QUOTE]


EXACTLY. They're messing with 'weapons of mass destruction'. There is most certainly a better way to go about it than a strike to disarm them. They aren't too far away from our west coast.

Unregistered

First off I was responding to HellaDumb's comment about how we are "defenseless" because of "Kerry voted to ****-can half our friken arsenal... what are we going to use to fight them? Chop sticks?" Which is a laughable thing to say since we are FAR from being defenseless.

You obviously didn't understand what Kerry said. Let me put it in terms that you might grap better. (I have no idea how you guys fail to understand these concepts.) He stated he would do everything in power to have no war break out and would use force if its the only option avaliable. NO ONE in that area wants to have a war break out. But Bush is only using one approach while Kerry wants to use two. Bush says China will pull out if Kerry does this. But I don't see why they would since they have a LARGE vested intrest in not entering a conflict. Bush showed the world that he would not use all possible options before going to war. He will do it with or without the rest of their support. So in that respect how would you as another country trust a president like him to do the right thing with N. Korea when he didn't with Iraq.


Find me when Kerry said he would stop having talks with the six parties? Come on provide some links to where he would just stop talking to all the parties involved and start a war? By history alone it would be more like Bush to do that than Kerry. Because Kerry NEVER said that. I don't know where you came up with that information but your very uniformed about it and should do some research on what Kerry proposes.

Unregistered

And here I thought we entered Iraq because they had "Weapons of Mass Destruction," yet your saying that we should be more careful with N. Korea. Funny and here I thought we should of been more careful before entering Iraq. Oh and guess what no "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" where found in Iraq go firgure.

subaruguru

Wait, Kerry said bottom line he would use force to disarm North Korea. Bush is dead right to say no war with North Korea is good; if it's a choice between disarming and having a war or not disarming, it's better to just not disarm. Can we agree on that? If we can, then what the heck was the point of Kerry's statement about pre-emptive strikes?

As far as the six party talks, no, Kerry didn't say he'd abandon them. What he did say is that he wanted bilateral talks. And, Bush was also right to say that bilateral talks (two sided, that's what bilateral means) between the US and North Korea would drive China out of the six party talks, effectively making them moot. See my above post; the whole reason we have those talks is China's posturing for influence. Without that incentive, China isn't going to play ball.

Regardless of your position on Iraq, this North Korea talk from Kerry is absurd. No, China doesn't want a war...but you can bet your draftable young butt that if there is a war, China is going to weigh in on one of the sides. Which one would you think that would be?

I trust Bush to stand by his word on these things. He said from the beginning that he wanted to get rid of Saddam. He's also said from the beginning that war with North Korea is not an option. Both of those things are sensible policies.

Kerry voted for the war, before he voted against it. Now he's saying he thinks we should consider disarming North Korea by force. That's one position I hope he'll flip flop on!

Salty

iTrader: (14)

We wouldn't be defenseless but it would make OIF & OEF look like fairy tale town in U.S. casualties. You guys keep preaching about 1000+ deaths during the 2 year WOT... But imagine going beyond that just at the DMZ (google). Commanders familiar with war doctrine have known that any offensive in North Korea will make "you nostalgic for the good old Baghdad days" and "give the greatest chance of you and I getting drafted."

I don't understand how you guys can possibly justify yourself with Kerry when the Bush Administration went off intelligence (legitimate at the time) regarding Iraqi's WMD. It was only proven later with the 9/11 commission report that the intelligence wasn't good enough. But it's okay to consider one of the bloodiest strikes ever because we think Kim Jong has nuclear weapons in Pyongyang? We don't even know if he has one, eight -or- ANY nuclear weapons but we're assuming they do because South Korea and a few NK officials say so?! Why is hearsay (seeing how there's no solid proof of stockpiles yet) legitimate enough for Kerry but intelligence from the CIA (and other intel agencies) regarding Iraqi stockpiles is lunacy? Does any of this sound familiar during the 90's?