View Full Version : A NK/Iran Connection?
1stFlight
06-17-03, 07:44 AM
Sometime it sucks when I'm right...
I wonder what lesson Bush wanted to teach the world? Arm up against us or die? Gee, that's intelligent.
http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/tue/jun17w23.htm
North exports missiles to Iran by air: Report
SEOUL (AFP) - North Korea has shipped missiles to Iran aboard cargo planes ever since a weapons-laden ship was intercepted en route to Yemen in December, a South Korean newspaper said Monday.
The United States has spotted Iran's IL-76 cargo aircraft leaving North Korea's Sunan airport on six occasions since April, the JoongAng newspaper said, quoting US and South Korean intelligence sources.
Until last year, Iranian airplanes visited North Korea about twice a year at most, the daily said.
"The Iranian cargo planes that took off from Sunan Airport flew over China and central Asian countries," an intelligence source was quoted as saying.
Although the cargo was in containers, intelligence officials have concluded that the payload was disassembled Rodong missiles, the same as were sold to Pakistan in 1998, JoongAng said.
The Rodong missile has a range of 1,300 km. Iran has been widely believed to have used North Korean technology in developing a medium-range ballistic missile test-fired in 1998.
Iran and North Korea were included last year in an "axis of evil" with Iraq by US President George W. Bush, bent on spreading weapons of mass destruction.
Now, now, you have no evidence that those cargo planes were actually carrying weapons... more likely they were carrying chocolate chip cookies. ;)
vampireuk
06-17-03, 07:51 AM
I could do with a cookie right now, reckon they would fly me some over?
intercede007
06-17-03, 07:53 AM
A few RIM-116A Anti-Ship missiles should take care of that little problem :bye:
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Sometime it sucks when I'm right...
I wonder what lesson Bush wanted to teach the world? Arm up against us or die? Gee, that's intelligent.
http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/tue/jun17w23.htm
I don't understand your point. This is not surprising. Are you saying we should go after N. Korea. That would be real smart. They do have nukes us we all know. You handle these countries differently. You do not just invade a nuke loaded country the same way you do a country like Iraq. Besides Clinton is the one who put this issue off. Now you want to some how attribute it to Bush? This make no sense.
deejaya
06-17-03, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by UDawg71
You do not just invade a nuke loaded country the same way you do a country like Iraq.
That doesn't make sense. Ok, Iraq broke resolutions, but the main reason was the WMD they supposedly had. But now this doesn't apply to NK? Why? Doesn't eating children make NK as bad as Iraq? :confused:
2fast4u
06-17-03, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by deejaya
That doesn't make sense. Ok, Iraq broke resolutions, but the main reason was the WMD they supposedly had. But now this doesn't apply to NK? Why? Doesn't eating children make NK as bad as Iraq? :confused:
because north korea isnt as easy to take as iraq. and i dont expect bush to be as stupid as to attack them either.
Originally posted by 2fast4u
because north korea isnt as easy to take as iraq. and i dont expect bush to be as stupid as to attack them either.
Agreed.
You cannot risk a nuke attack on S. Korea. We would be saraficing all of them just to take out this wacko. This would be insane. It isn't that we couldn't kick the crap out of them. It is that little shiney bomb can do so much damage so quickly to so many innocent people. This isn't about taking out a weak country and being affraid of N. Korea. It is as I said, to big a risk.
deejaya
06-17-03, 08:51 AM
I agree with what you are saying. But, isn't this easy to say now, after the event? According to most sources before anything happened in Iraq, they had WMDs, and were prepared to use them. So what is the difference? What if Iraq had have used their "little shiney bomb"? Or did we go to war with Iraq knowing full well they didn't have anything of the sort?
2fast4u
06-17-03, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by deejaya
I agree with what you are saying. But, isn't this easy to say now, after the event? According to most sources before anything happened in Iraq, they had WMDs, and were prepared to use them. So what is the difference? What if Iraq had have used their "little shiney bomb"? Or did we go to war with Iraq knowing full well they didn't have anything of the sort?
the difference is probably that iraq indeed _didnt_ have wmds ;)
1stFlight
06-17-03, 08:55 AM
Here's where the humor begins
1) We aren't going to fight them
2) We aren't going to negotiate
3) By default we are going to let them build their nukes
4) We are going to let them use their own people to test chemical weapons on
5) We are going to let Kim Jong put dissidents in slave labor camps.
6) We are going to let Kim flaunt UN resolutions.
7) We are letting him export that technology to others.
In effect we've taught the world and every crackpot leader in it. Work your azz off to acquire nukes or suffer the consquences.
The best Clinton could do was work to keep a madman from becoming more powerful, the best Bush can do is sit back and watch it happen.
Originally posted by UDawg71
Agreed.
You cannot risk a nuke attack on S. Korea. We would be saraficing all of them just to take out this wacko. This would be insane. It isn't that we couldn't kick the crap out of them. It is that little shiney bomb can do so much damage so quickly to so many innocent people. This isn't about taking out a weak country and being affraid of N. Korea. It is as I said, to big a risk.
japan has invited kim jong Il to hiroshima for the anniversary on the attack on the city in ww II... hoping to show him the true horrors that nuclear weapons can inflict on people...
I think that is a nice gesture.. first the invitation by japan... and secondly the memorial...
naturally a lot of bad blood between n.korea and japan... but little gestures always lead to better things... :)
/beer here's to hoping...
Originally posted by deejaya
I agree with what you are saying. But, isn't this easy to say now, after the event? According to most sources before anything happened in Iraq, they had WMDs, and were prepared to use them. So what is the difference? What if Iraq had have used their "little shiney bomb"? Or did we go to war with Iraq knowing full well they didn't have anything of the sort?
the last statement appears to be gaining momentum as the days progress...
personally I am fed up seeing well to do and perfectly honest and hard working soldiers in Iraq die meaninglessly...
if there was a proper idea of how things worked we would have CONTROL of iraq and our lads would not be dropping like flies... :(
how many more before the US people start clamoring for a withdrawl from Iraq and leaving a huge power vacuum for the fundamentalists to jump into (iran anyone ? different setup to the same goals init ? )
1stFlight
06-17-03, 09:51 AM
Same here, we just lost another one today.
Add to it, now we're asking for the scientists to help lead us to weapons we should already know the location of.
Like they're really going to help Bush make their country look bad. As opposed to making Bush look like a buffoon.
Originally posted by 1stFlight
Same here, we just lost another one today.
Add to it, now we're asking for the scientists to help lead us to weapons we should already know the location of.
Like they're really going to help Bush make their country look bad. As opposed to making Bush look like a buffoon.
yah sniper took out one of the boys :(
bout the scientists... thats the way it is supposed to work... the intelligence suggests sites... the scientists and the people who work hands on with the creation/storage of these materials are the ones who ARE supposed to be interogated to find the location...
bout the bush == bufoon thing... no comment :D
too easy...
1stFlight
06-17-03, 10:14 AM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030623/usnews/23gulag.htm
If nothing else, I'll bet it keeps crime low.
Originally posted by 1stFlight
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030623/usnews/23gulag.htm
If nothing else, I'll bet it keeps crime low.
So should we go into N. Korea because of these terrible violations? What should we do about it? I am not being sarcastic. I am open to suggestions.
Originally posted by UDawg71
So should we go into N. Korea because of these terrible violations? What should we do about it? I am not being sarcastic. I am open to suggestions.
north korea should have been dealt with a long time ago...
when kim jong Il's dad was around... north korea was VERY warm to reopening ties with south korea and adopting a more global perspective...
that sorta went down the pooper when he died unfortunately :(
Originally posted by UDawg71
So should we go into N. Korea because of these terrible violations? What should we do about it? I am not being sarcastic. I am open to suggestions.
That is why we continue to have diplomatic negotiations with them. It would make no sense to go into N Korea at this moment. What kind of a message would that send to all the other countries? One would have to leave that as a last straw kinda deal. There are already so many questions whether Iraq was the right thing to do.... You think going into N Korea would help this situation any more?
vampireuk
06-17-03, 11:38 AM
I would actually hold off saying that we could kick North Koreas ass. They have one hell of a army and the country is set up for war:eek:
Apparently the garrison of US troops in South Korea refer to themselves as only a speedbump if they decided to invade. Have the troops been moved back yet? I heard they were been moved out of artillery range.
Originally posted by vampireuk
I would actually hold off saying that we could kick North Koreas ass. They have one hell of a army and the country is set up for war:eek:
Apparently the garrison of US troops in South Korea refer to themselves as only a speedbump if they decided to invade. Have the troops been moved back yet? I heard they were been moved out of artillery range.
That is what i heared too. And I would have to agree with Vamp here as N Korea is not the same as Iraq. Their army is much more powerful, better trained and who could forget their arsenal.
Originally posted by vampireuk
I would actually hold off saying that we could kick North Koreas ass. They have one hell of a army and the country is set up for war:eek:
Apparently the garrison of US troops in South Korea refer to themselves as only a speedbump if they decided to invade. Have the troops been moved back yet? I heard they were been moved out of artillery range.
Trust me we could kick thier arss. Our troops there are just there to keep camps ready for our main force. You also have to keep in mind S. Korea has a massive army also. N. Korea would have a tough time dealing with them.
Originally posted by UDawg71
Trust me we could kick thier arss. Our troops there are just there to keep camps ready for our main force. You also have to keep in mind S. Korea has a massive army also. N. Korea would have a tough time dealing with them.
Yes, but you have to agree that this time it would not be the quick in and out kind of war. maybe in the long run US would kick their ass, but how many lives would be lost? Does this cause justify that???
Originally posted by b00bie
Yes, but you have to agree that this time it would not be the quick in and out kind of war. maybe in the long run US would kick their ass, but how many lives would be lost? Does this cause justify that???
I agree. That is why we have to go about this another way.
2fast4u
06-17-03, 03:11 PM
war between 2 countries that have nukes = we be unf'd ... all
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.