TexasCHLforum.com

Now, since NK went public with ultra modern uranium enriching plant, another nuclear provocation.

Can one see, the world is getting a bit more dangerous? If this is not another white house crisis, I do not know what to call it.

The USA is not the world police and we don't automatically know what's best for the rest of the world. We have more than enough socio-economic problems here in the USA to resolve before we try to fix rest of the world.

IMO, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had minded their own business and left Saddam Hussein to mind his business, we wouldn't have the Iran issue. Saddam maintained order in his part of the world in a manner understood by the locals.

As far as North Korea and Afghanistan are concerned, give them 72 hours to stand down or we Nuke 'em. No more "winning the hearts and minds" bull and no more American lives and dollars wasted trying to buy friends where there are no friends.

Other than that....

Oldgringo wrote:The USA is not the world police and we don't automatically know what's best for the rest of the world. We have more than enough socio-economic problems here in the USA to resolve before we try to fix rest of the world.

IMO, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had minded their own business and left Saddam Hussein to mind his business, we wouldn't have the Iran issue. Saddam maintained order in his part of the world in a manner understood by the locals.

As far as North Korea and Afghanistan are concerned, give them 72 hours to stand down or we Nuke 'em. No more "winning the hearts and minds" bull and no more American lives and dollars wasted trying to buy friends where there are no friends.

Other than that....

OK, you have me totally confused. We're not the world police but we're supposed to nuke North Korea and Afghanistan??? How do you reconcile those two?

As for the idea that Iran needed our recent activities to become a threat, well, news must not travel fast out there in the piney woods. You're about five Presidents and more than three decades behind the point where Iran became a problem.

Oldgringo wrote: IMO, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had minded their own business and left Saddam Hussein to mind his business, we wouldn't have the Iran issue. Saddam maintained order in his part of the world in a manner understood by the locals.

Had we left Saddam alone, both nut jobs in Iraq and Iran would both eventually have nukes. It's anyone's guess on who would have pulled the trigger first.

baldeagle wrote:

OK, you have me totally confused. We're not the world police but we're supposed to nuke North Korea and Afghanistan??? How do you reconcile those two?

C-dub wrote:

Had we left Saddam alone, both nut jobs in Iraq and Iran would both eventually have nukes. It's anyone's guess on who would have pulled the trigger first.

You're right, the Shah of Iran was one of the best friends this country ever had and we watched the fanatical Ayatollahs depose him. As for North Korea, strike while the iron is hot. Afghanistan is an historic death trap to all invaders, does history teach us nothing?

So, what's done is done. Is the world a safer place, are we still dependent on foreign oil, are we borrowing money from another sworn enemy to shore up our war torn economy? It is past time that we start looking after our country and its people FIRST and the devil take the others. Teddy Roosevelt was right when he said, "walk softly and carry a big stick".

BTW boys, in my first presidential election I voted for Barry Goldwater and I have voted for every republican candidate since. It's time to make an omelette and everybody knows that eggs must be broken to make an omelette.

IANAL nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express ever. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

If not contained, NK with its nuke will spook SK and Japan and both countries will declare their states as Nuclear states and the arms race would ignite. Same story will happen in Middle East, Israel will attack Iran, Iran 2 yrs later will detonate first Nuke and declare its self a big-boy country. Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and Turkey will get spooked and declare they joined the nuclear race.

World is a bit hot!

I'd be surprised if Japan went Nuclear. The reason the USS Kitty Hawk was in service so long was that the Japanese didn't even want a nuclear powered aircraft carrier using Yokusuka as a home port. South Korea I could see, I just wonder if there's too much of a stigma in Japan for them to ever seek nuclear weapons.

74novaman wrote:I'd be surprised if Japan went Nuclear. The reason the USS Kitty Hawk was in service so long was that the Japanese didn't even want a nuclear powered aircraft carrier using Yokusuka as a home port. South Korea I could see, I just wonder if there's too much of a stigma in Japan for them to ever seek nuclear weapons.

When your enemy is threatening Nuclear war, owning a nuclear arsenal that you control is not a bad idea. Time will change. Japanese people are not that idiots to sit defenseless, like quaking ducks.This is my speculation.

Who supply oil and gasoline products to NK? Is there anyway to cut that off?

Beiruty wrote:Who supply oil and gasoline products to NK? Is there anyway to cut that off?

I think most of their imports come from China...they may get some oil from Iran.

Considering how much leverage we have with China, seeing as how they own our national debt, don't count on political pressure cutting of that supply any time soon.

Just looked at the CIA World Factbook:

Countries that Import to North Korea:
China 57%, South Korea 25%, Russia 3%, Singapore 3% (2008)

Oil Imported:
13,890 bbl/day (2007 est.)

Doesn't say what country the oil comes from.

74novaman wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Who supply oil and gasoline products to NK? Is there anyway to cut that off?

I think most of their imports come from China...they may get some oil from Iran.

Considering how much leverage we have with China, seeing as how they own our national debt, don't count on political pressure cutting of that supply any time soon.

Guess who saved the North Koreans in the so-called Korean Conflict over a half century ago?

I don't have to guess. You're talking to a history major here...haha.

SmoothFox wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: IMO, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had minded their own business and left Saddam Hussein to mind his business, we wouldn't have the Iran issue. Saddam maintained order in his part of the world in a manner understood by the locals.

Had we left Saddam alone, both nut jobs in Iraq and Iran would both eventually have nukes. It's anyone's guess on who would have pulled the trigger first.

AWESOME!!!! They would have nuked each other problem solved!

BINGO! We have another winner!

Oldgringo wrote:

SmoothFox wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: IMO, if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had minded their own business and left Saddam Hussein to mind his business, we wouldn't have the Iran issue. Saddam maintained order in his part of the world in a manner understood by the locals.

Had we left Saddam alone, both nut jobs in Iraq and Iran would both eventually have nukes. It's anyone's guess on who would have pulled the trigger first.

AWESOME!!!! They would have nuked each other problem solved!

BINGO! We have another winner!

I disagree. Both countries hate Israel much more than they hate each other.