Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KoRn

I am almost tempted to say something here, which will bring down the wrath of Bushbots on me, but I had stated it a few years ago on FR about priorities. What can you say? What can you do?


48 posted on 10/11/2006 7:43:44 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (..is an American allright, but is not in Japan, folks. Thanks for letting me keep the moniker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: AmericanInTokyo

"which will bring down the wrath of Bushbots on me,"

I think military action was always a last-ditch option with DPRK for bush, for obvious reasons (bloodbath potential, chinese/russian issues), but Iraq is probably the one country the US could most easily invade and occupy after afghanistan from an international politics view and from a military view, compared to iran and dprk. I also believe the outcome 3 1/2 years later is iraq is something the administration would not have believed likely or desirable in march 03.


63 posted on 10/11/2006 7:54:18 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: AmericanInTokyo; KoRn
If it means moving troops from Iraq into that area, then so be it.

AIT, you don't have to bring the wrath of the Bushbots if you've got a valid point. =D

But I get tired of hearing this "stretched too thin by Iraq" mantra. That's total BS.

There's almost zero Air-Force assets being used in Iraq right now. B-2s are bored. There's no subs needed in Iraq to patrol the Sea of Japan. And finally, we have at least two real allies in Asia, if you count South Korea!

You need boots on the ground to occupy Iraq. Occupying North Korea would be a ridiculous idea (we been there, couldn't do that).

Whatever US troops are in SK now are not going to stop the NK artillery bombardment of Seoul, anyway.

75 posted on 10/11/2006 8:04:07 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: AmericanInTokyo

What should Bush have done? Looks like NK had nukes before Bush even took office. If so, the situation from then to now is no different. Bad, yes, but not different.

The fact is that it is going to take something nearly cataclysmic -- or the clear and present threat thereof that is beyond dispute even to America-haters -- to wake up large segments of our own population and the international community from their socialist/pacifist/moral nihilist stupor. Until that happens, it will continue to be a diplomacy-uber-alles talk-talk-talk/blah-blah-blah state of denial.

Any president, Clinton or Bush, who tried or tries military action against NK before we reach said precipice (which, yes, may be too late), would have been or will be impeached and removed from office immediately.

There are and have been only 3 possibilities from the beginning of this crisis in the 90's:

1) Hope that the regime collapses via a coup (and hope the new boss isn't the same or worse than the old boss);

2) Go to war with NK now.

3) Go to war with NK later, possibly too late.


232 posted on 10/12/2006 1:00:02 PM PDT by Zhangliqun (The fetal position has yet to scare a bully.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson