Anonymoose NoSpam
May 3rd 04, 08:51 PM
> "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
>>firstly the us bitches whines etc etc as usual with iraq saying they
>>some kind a threat .. ( beat the drum as loud as want til the people get
>>idea )
>>
>>next north korea says it can strike anywhere on the usa west coast with
>>long range nuke missiles still the us chases iraq for some obscure
>>reason..
>>
>>anyone care to tell why north korea which can attack the usa directly
>>suddenly is less a threat???? then iraq who cant even attack the usa
>>anyway and they are still numba 1?
Why is NK less of a threat than Iraq? Three reasons; see below. Given
how much the US defense budget has been gutted since Reagan, the US had
to give up the fiction of being able to fight two simultaneous regional
conflicts. So the US concentrates militarily on the greatest threat for
now.
1. Previous Real History, not Histrionics
Saddam fought wars with three of his neighbors in the past couple of
decades (Iran, Kuwait & Saudi Arabia), as well as gassing many of his
own people (Kurds) and launching missiles with intent to kill into
nearby countries (such as Israel).
North Korea, in spite of lots of hot air, has stayed well within their
country's boundaries and hasn't invaded anyone. Their missile launches,
although provocative, have been aimed into the ocean, not into populated
areas.
2. Missiles
NK's missiles are still untested and so might or might not be able to
reach the US West Coast, although give it a couple of more years and
they probably can, but with a very limited throw weight, and not enough
accuracy to threaten us militarily (hit a population center perhaps, but
not accurate enough for a military target).
Saddam, on the other hand, could target many, many more populated areas
of people he regarded as an enemy. He also has used his missiles with
intent to kill; NK had not (see point #1).
3. Regional Politics
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy (please note I didn't say quickly
or easily - it took us a generation or two in Germany) in the middle of
the Middle East does far more to make the world a safer place than does
turning NK into a stable democracy. Look at a geo-political map.
For more background (not that you're likely to read anything that's
against your prejudices, anyway), see:
- North Korean Threat Exaggerated,
http://www.fas.org/main/article.jsp?formAction=295&articleId=26 - {FAS
is, of course, well know to be such a shill for the Bush Administration
:-) }
- Taepodong-2 Overview and Assessment,
http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/msl/cap/NKM_Ch_taepo2GO.html
>>firstly the us bitches whines etc etc as usual with iraq saying they
>>some kind a threat .. ( beat the drum as loud as want til the people get
>>idea )
>>
>>next north korea says it can strike anywhere on the usa west coast with
>>long range nuke missiles still the us chases iraq for some obscure
>>reason..
>>
>>anyone care to tell why north korea which can attack the usa directly
>>suddenly is less a threat???? then iraq who cant even attack the usa
>>anyway and they are still numba 1?
Why is NK less of a threat than Iraq? Three reasons; see below. Given
how much the US defense budget has been gutted since Reagan, the US had
to give up the fiction of being able to fight two simultaneous regional
conflicts. So the US concentrates militarily on the greatest threat for
now.
1. Previous Real History, not Histrionics
Saddam fought wars with three of his neighbors in the past couple of
decades (Iran, Kuwait & Saudi Arabia), as well as gassing many of his
own people (Kurds) and launching missiles with intent to kill into
nearby countries (such as Israel).
North Korea, in spite of lots of hot air, has stayed well within their
country's boundaries and hasn't invaded anyone. Their missile launches,
although provocative, have been aimed into the ocean, not into populated
areas.
2. Missiles
NK's missiles are still untested and so might or might not be able to
reach the US West Coast, although give it a couple of more years and
they probably can, but with a very limited throw weight, and not enough
accuracy to threaten us militarily (hit a population center perhaps, but
not accurate enough for a military target).
Saddam, on the other hand, could target many, many more populated areas
of people he regarded as an enemy. He also has used his missiles with
intent to kill; NK had not (see point #1).
3. Regional Politics
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy (please note I didn't say quickly
or easily - it took us a generation or two in Germany) in the middle of
the Middle East does far more to make the world a safer place than does
turning NK into a stable democracy. Look at a geo-political map.
For more background (not that you're likely to read anything that's
against your prejudices, anyway), see:
- North Korean Threat Exaggerated,
http://www.fas.org/main/article.jsp?formAction=295&articleId=26 - {FAS
is, of course, well know to be such a shill for the Bush Administration
:-) }
- Taepodong-2 Overview and Assessment,
http://www.nti.org/db/profiles/dprk/msl/cap/NKM_Ch_taepo2GO.html