The W4O Parliament Options

[jonajosa]

N...K... ??

[Wolfie]

North Korea

[DoomedOne]

China was never a true communism. They were only socialist for a short while. I mean come on, a capitalist communism is begging to be corrupted.

[jonajosa]

They need a change in goverment... and a leader.

[DoomedOne]

But America should not be the enforcer of this change. If the people are strong enough, they can do it. Every time we support an uprising of a people a dictatorship comes into power.

[Channler]

[quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..

[Wolfie]

I'm fairly sure britain would be right beside you guys................again..

[DoomedOne]

[quote=Channler][quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..[/quote]

Exactly. Bush is afriad of North Korea. He could start ww3. When obtaining oil and making his buddies rich it's just more intelligent to go after weaker, war-torn countries.

[Channler]

[quote=DoomedOne]
Exactly. Bush is afriad of North Korea. He could start ww3. When obtaining oil and making his buddies rich it's just more intelligent to go after weaker, war-torn countries.[/quote]

I'm still trying to find this magical oil you keep on talking about doomedone... :hugesmile:

[DoomedOne]

jsut because they secured the oil doesn't mean they'd bring the oil prices down. They pocketed billions on this war. The oil prices, at this point, are not a direct corrolation to how much oil is easily obtainable. The first thing the soldiers did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oild fields. Even if it wasn't Bush's goal to get the oil, which it was, the oil prices would have gone down because it's not exactly a secret that we did secure all their oil.

[Channler]

[quote=DoomedOne]jsut because they secured the oil doesn't mean they'd bring the oil prices down. They pocketed billions on this war. The oil prices, at this point, are not a direct corrolation to how much oil is easily obtainable. The first thing the soldiers did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oild fields. Even if it wasn't Bush's goal to get the oil, which it was, the oil prices would have gone down because it's not exactly a secret that we did secure all their oil.[/quote]

And where do you suppose Houdini, err I mean Bush, put the oil that he's keeping for himself and his friends?

And need I remind you that we secured the oil feilds so the they wouldn't BURN THE OIL! I'm sure those Eco-Nazi's would of had two and half cows if they were lit ablaze.

And who is "They"?

[DoomedOne]

Oil companies. Oil companies have been raising the oil prices for what appears to be no reason since we did manage to secure the opil fields. YUour problem is you assume oil prices directly corrolate with how much oil we have secured. We've secured the oil, it's ours, plain and simple. We're not letting it sit there either, we've been shipping it out of Iraq since day 1.

You can't try to tell me Bush didn;t want to oil, because let's face it, they have it, they accomplished securing the oil fields early on, and they've been shipping it out as I've said. That goal was accomplished, and it was Bush's primary goal. That's why he won't attack North Korea, because morals and real threats don't mean a damn to him or his administration. He invades and occupies countries for the same reason Reagan did, Bush did and Clinton did, money.

[Channler]

Well even though I really don't agree with you, I'm glad that your not some sort of liberal hippy.. Puttin clinton on that list really made it clear.

No I do not think that oil prices are directly related to the war and what not. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) doesn't america get most of it's oil from venezula (SP?)

[DoomedOne]

Somewhere along there. Anyway, the fact that oil companies are rasing the price of oil has nothing to do with the sitatuion in Iraq.

[Channler]

[quote=DoomedOne]Somewhere along there. Anyway, the fact that oil companies are rasing the price of oil has nothing to do with the sitatuion in Iraq.[/quote]

Well if you think that is what I ment then I apologize, cause I didn't quite mean that.

[jonajosa]

Our oil problem goes back to the days when the car was first invented. ONe man is not to blame for that trouble. Everybody has commited to it. Every single person who dries a car, uses a heater or helps someone who uses these things is at fault.

All of our presidents are to blame. Bush is the present one so naturally hell get the most critisism right now. When the next pres. comes to office hell get hammered by the same people who hated bush. Its a never ending sequence. People just need someone to blame for their mistakes.

[Chumbaniya]

[quote=Channler][quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..[/quote]

I think the real reason north korea isn't attacked is because they actually HAVE weapons of mass destruction; It was fine to attack iraq since they had no weapons to use against the american coalition forces - if north korea was attacked, they could defend themselves using the weapons that the war was about. The only countries that can be attacked for having weapons of mass destruction are those that DON'T have weapons of mass destruction.

EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)

[Fuzzy Knight]

I agree on that Chumb... Its almost like in the cold war, if you would first attack Russia or North-Korea whole hell would break loose... :ashamed:

[Channler]

[quote=Chumbaniya]
EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.. why would you be afraid of the US fighting on your side?

[Chumbaniya]

[quote=Channler][quote=Chumbaniya]
EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.. why would you be afraid of the US fighting on your side?[/quote]

Friendly fire is a big killer when fighting on the side of the americans. Remember when they shot down that british helicopter? Supposedly they thought it was Iraqi. Since when did the Iraqis have an air force, and even if they did, they wouldn't have helicopters anything like modern western models.