How come Bush spends so much time demonizing Iran by claiming it's X amount of time away from obtaining a nuclear weapon while North Korea now has one? Surely with his extensive intelligence network, he'd know North Korea is actually a far greater threat than the Middle East. I'm feeling lost here. This is so hypocritical...

Don't forget that the silly man acts on one percent probability.
He doesn't need proof. Viva la Cheney doctrine!

North Korea doesn't have oil?

@ORJ

Wait, what? You can take your inane babbling elsewhere. This isn't about bashing Bush and Cheney, it's about finding out their motives. Why would Bush try to gain permanent military presence in the Middle East (on the pretense of WMDs no less), yet ignore North Korea and its dangerous nuclear posturing?

Chill out, Free. I didn't mean to turn this thread into something else. The fact that you are doubting their motives made me think of the one percent probability doctrine, and how absurd it is when we're talking about motives.

It's just an association that I had, and nothing to get unfriendly about.

[And thus i read the other thread....]
God i wish i could stamp VOID on some of my posts.

Seriously, dude, start watching the news and reading the newspaper, as in more than jus the headlines.

Bush spends so much time demonizing Iran because Iran is the new enemy. It's the latest fad and it's what gets the votes.
But hopefully what they're talking about and what they're doing is two different things.
I'm not an american, so I may be out of line saying this but: Bush is just a vote grabber, he's there to endearing with his mumbled words. He's not there to fix the country, he's not there to stop the enemies, he's there to be a figurehead. The government actions are not decided by him, but his people.
So the question is... what are his people doing?

What politician isn't a vote getter, especially a president?

Good point Avenger, and one I can't think of an argument against (I'm a poor devils advocate)

Ever hear of stopping a problem before it starts? North Korea has already crossed the line of no return. No one can do anything to stop them. Iran, however, can be thwarted.

True! All Hail World Police!

Agreed, the North Korea issue has been going on since the Korean war. We have constantly tried negotiating, appeasing, etc, and yet still nothing is resolved. Clinton's administration worked on North Korea, as did those before. It's not like the US has blown off North Korea - (there is a process going on in NK)- but we really need the support of China in that one to have any weight.

However, the leader of Iran believes the end of the world is coming within two years and that being the chosen person, it is his job to spread Islam to all the world for when the world ends.

You tell me which is more the current threat.

[Edit: And I was agreeing with Darth J, not Koobie - who is starting to sound real intelligent with his comments in all threads about the US]

I guess OMG EVIL COMMUNISTS isn't as media sexy as it used to be.

yea, now people are questioning the government, jeeze

you didn't hear? communism is the hip new thing these days

all the cool kids are like "lol, communism"

It's simple, really. Iran isn't right next to China. Were North Korea to become hostile, their target would probably be Japan. Japan would fight back, hard. If North Korea survived that, China would take them over.

It's scary enough knowing ANYONE has weapons capable of destroying the world. Are you really going to slam the United States for trying to limit the number?

That's like saying "because the teacher took a gun to school (a terrible idea), the children should be able to as well, and damn the teacher to hell if she tries to stop them."

Actually, Bush is no longer a "vote grabber" because he can't run for president again. Whatever he does now is supposedly in the true spirit of helping our country.

Supposedly.

North Korea builds nukes because they want to posture and have a bargaining chip that will get them aid and trading from other countries. Iran wants nukes because they want to destroy Israel and bring about the end of the world. Not to mention destabilize a region that is critical for not only our economy, but the rest of the world as well. Personally, I'd make Iran a little more of a priority too.

But apparently allowing the super-powers to police the world is far more dangerous than the destruction of Israel.

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]North Korea builds nukes because they want to posture and have a bargaining chip that will get them aid and trading from other countries. Iran wants nukes because they want to destroy Israel and bring about the end of the world. Not to mention destabilize a region that is critical for not only our economy, but the rest of the world as well. Personally, I'd make Iran a little more of a priority too.[/QUOTE]
North Korea has stated numerous times it wants to destroy America.

Iran is a "direct threat to the safety of the world" in the same way that Iraq was three years ago. Which is to say they're not.

But no one seriously expects North Korea to try to attack the US, as their country would then be turned into radioactive glass. They don't have a death wish. Iran, however, wants to bring in the end of the world, and radical Islam such as theirs feels no compunctions in dying to do it. So there is a deterrent against North Korea using such weapons, but what kind of deterrent do we have if Iran gains them and wants to use them?

I believe he meant that he is a vote getter for the wrong reasons and using the wrong methods. Perhaps analogous to a corporation making money legitimately through fair business practices and satisfied customers, as opposed to monopolizing the market and using unfair or illegal business practices? Maybe Google compared to old Microsoft, or, good lord, old IBM.

[QUOTE=Rogue Leader]But no one seriously expects North Korea to try to attack the US, as their country would then be turned into radioactive glass.[/QUOTE]
We wouldn't even need to nuke them. It's so damn small that conventional weapons could destroy the entire country in weeks without damaging their neighbors.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Killjoy.

[QUOTE=Darth J]Ever hear of stopping a problem before it starts? North Korea has already crossed the line of no return.[/QUOTE]No they haven't. Not really anyway.

As insane as Kim Jong Il is, he'd never use a nuclear weapon - not even if they were invaded. The same exact statement can be applied to Iran (which is, in spite of popular opinion, quite well-adjusted as far as theocratic nations go). In fact I would argue that having a strong regional nuclear power balanced against another strong regional nuclear power is the perfect formula for political stability. Had the United States and Russia both been armed with only conventional weapons, the Cold War would have escalated into a real war very quickly. If, tomorrow, Israel and Iran both declared that they have a gun pointed at the head of the world, do you think Hezbollah drones would still be launching bottle rockets at Israel? I think not.

Additionally, a stable and healthy nation with nuclear weapons isn't much of a threat. The problem is when the nation destabilizes. This is not much of a concern in Iran, but it wouldn't take much to provoke a regime change in North Korea. For instance, if the UN decides that making North Korea's enormous army go hungry. Then we have a problem and the nuclear weapons mysteriously go "missing".

The best part about my argument is that it forces the there-are-WMDs-in-Iraq mouthbreathers to agree that Bush's foreign policy is absurd.

How come everyone keeps failing to address the issue of Iran's president truely believing that his purpose is to help bring us to end of the world (within two years)? To me this is the most critical issue. If you believe that your time is up (the end of the world), would you really care about your long term reputation, or even threats of your own annihilation if you succeeded in what your 'god' told you to do?

At least North Korea wants a future. The problem with North Korea is also that they are a poor country, which gives them more incentive to sell their weapons. So North Korea might not nuke someone logistically speaking, but a group they sell it to will.

Can you cite a source of him saying this?

Because North Korea has already won. In fact, with this test, it's become apparent that they won a long time ago. No one wants to say it, but it's the truth. They'll be able to use their status as a nuclear power to leverage concessions from the U.S. and from their Asian neighbors, and there's little we can do about it at this point.

Iran, however, we can still prevent from obtaining nuclear weapons, so that takes precedence.

I think it's because no one else is watching those in the Middle East. I mean, Japan and South Korea are really concerned with North Korea. It would be easier to beat them using allies if they went bonkers (went bonkers outside of their borders).

As for Iran, who besides the US and Israel would care? Kazakhstan? Seriously, Bush is not some idiot bum pulled off the streets. Just because he is not a public speaker...

WTH are these?: /_\ :downs:
Where is :em321: ?

Right here, my friend.

Why don't we wait for actual proof that a nuke went off?

Let me rephrase that. Why don't we wait for actual proof that their nuclear test was successful...

I saw an article stating the seismic activity picked up by South Korean scientists could have been caused by the large amounts of conventional explosions North Korea was using to try to set off the fission reaction. The article claimed the seismic activity would have been larger if the nuke itself had gone off.

Sorry, I don't have the URL and I can't remember which news agency I read it from.

It's ok, I don't need URLs. I just know we don't have proof of a successful nuclear detonation.

Ha ha, north korea sucks at making nukes

I second this motion. Please cite.

I hate to be a dick about asking for a source, but that seems like some fox news-esque "some people say" rhetoric.