World Events

[Digital Guerrilla]

With North Korea restarting their nuclear program what is more of a threat, Iraq who the US insist has nuclear weapons or North Korea who does have the capiabilties for weapons in "months". US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that the US could fight Iraq, North Korea and the war on terrorism all at the same time, can the US really become the world's police? I do not doubt the might of the US military but could the "Axis of Evil" members be trying to take advantage of the present sitution between the US and Iraq. What does anyone else think?

[Anathema]

I think they can. The US wouldn't send many troops to fight seperate conflicts on different locations, even if its only for political reasons.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Ok at the same time should the US be more concerned with what N. Korean officils are saying, as far as actions, than the actions of Saddam and Iraqi officials who by the way are complying with what was asked of them. I do not know what the UN resolution holds as far as it's report content but I do know that the US rejects it's content as trustworthy. North Korea has removed UN cameras from the nuclear facilities after the United States and other countries halted fuel supplies to sanction a once-secret highly enriched uranium program the North acknowledged in October. It has been stated that North Korea needs power but also it is said their power grid could not sustain such power.

[Caid Ivik]

There is only one solution: give a nuke to Japan!

[Anathema]

The US wouldn't allow that, neither would China or Russia.

[Caid Ivik]

USA would make it. China and N.Korea aren't very friendly nations, so we should have there something too.

[Acriku]

I think North Korea and Iraq are allies. It would make sense since they are fighting against the same opponent, or will be fighting. Iraq has bad weapons, but try to do their best to hide them and comply with everybody, and North Korea don't give a shit and do what they want. North Korea seems more volatile.

[exatreide]

We want iraq becouse of oil. simple as that. dont let this whole axis of evil shizzit fool you.

we want north korea gone becouse they threatnen are position in north east asia, if south korea falls, japan will fall, and if japan falls we have no possition in that area to show are influence.

[Acriku]

We don't want Iraq's oil. Simple as that.

[exatreide]

no its that iraq threatens the sadi oil.

[Dunenewt]

Don't forget the trouble with the IRA in Ireland and the ETA in Spain

[Digital Guerrilla]

Maybe N. Korea is just trying to "get attention" to restart talks about their oil shipments that US president Bush halted. I do not believe that completely but former US president Clinton did have a problem with N. Korea also. ExAtreides sums it up very good about having N. Korea gone and the influence of Japan in the area. The same can be said of Iraq and having Saudi Arabia in that part of the Middle East.

[quoudam72]

The demilitarized zone is the new Berlin Wall a vivid illustration of the difference between communism and capitalism. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in August 2001 he said that North Korea has the nuclear material to have between two and five nuclear weapons, but he did not claim that any had been built. Recently on Meet the Press Florida Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee stated "North Korea has at least two nuclear weapons." For decades, the South Koreans have been discovering covert tunnels built by the North under the demilitarized zone, with enough size to drive large military vehicles through (most likely tanks).

Four things to keep in mind.

1. North Korea might already has nuclear weapons. The capital of South Korea, Seoul, is only 40 kilometers away from the border, an attack on North Korea could turn into nuclear war more dangerous than an attack on Iraq.

2. The US has a "vital interest" in Iraq: oil. North Korea is more abstract: prevention of war and nuclear proliferation. Both have importance, but the Iraq issue is more urgent.

3. North Korea has admitted to having a program to develop weapons of mass destruction. North Korea is showing clever candor Iraq claims it has abandoned such efforts, despite its admitted attempt before the war of 1991. Iraq is believed to be lying. With North Koreas admittance the US is likely to be 'nonviolent' solution towards the situation.

4. The US already knew the North Korea a nuclear program. The news was that they (North Korea) admitted to it. The U.S. is not quick to go to war. The US has negotiated with Iraq for eleven years (1991 to the present); the current crisis came four years ago, when Iraq cut off the access of the inspectors. North Korea, in its announcement, may be indicating(?) that they want to negotiate seriously. North Korea could be the next potential Iraq. The question is does the US want to steer it in another direction.

[Acriku]

What makes you say that the vital interest in Iraq is oil?

[quoudam72]

We have been over this 'oil interest' of the US and Iraq before if you don't understand by now I think you never will lech lehizdayen.

[Anathema]

We don't want Iraq's oil. Simple as that.

So now you're a government spokesman? At the moment not, but Iraq happens to have the 2nd largest oil reserve in the whole world.

[DukeLeto]

We don't want Iraq's oil. Simple as that.

Actually, Iraq is one of the largest suppliers of oil to American oil companies.

[emprworm]

"The Middle East holds two-thirds of the world's oil reserves.

The United States consumes nearly two-thirds of Iraqi oil exports, which are now running at 1.6 million barrels per day.

Iraqi oil, currently sold under a U.N. oil-for-food program, accounts for about five percent of the 20 million barrels consumed by the United States every day. "

-LONDON, April 4, 2002

Posted by: DukeLeto Posted on: Today at 15:13:18

Actually, Iraq is one of the largest suppliers of oil to American oil companies.

thats funny, I just read that Iraq only supplies the US with 5% of its total oil. where did you get your information from?

[DukeLeto]

Err, rather, America is one of the largest consumers of Iraqi oil. Whatever. But I think it's more than 5%.

[emprworm]

"America is one of the largest consumers of Iraqi oil"

yes that is correct. but total volume fluctuates from 4-7%. basically, we could do without Iraqi oil.

[Digital Guerrilla]

So where does the supply of the other 95% come from exactly? I think with Saddam out of the way that percentage could change, cheaper price per barrel, would you disagree or agree?

[Apollyon]

theres always Alaska, heh silly russians selling it like that :P (no offence to any russians here).

and I think it would be globally beneficial if the UN (probably more accurately America) took control of the Iraqi oil supply, it would mean that prices would become cheaper and stabilise and that Arabs couldnt charge huge prices.

[Digital Guerrilla]

North Korea is in violationing of the 1953 agreement regarding the 38 parallel. North Korea has also expelled the IAEA. Here is a link DMZ violation by North Korea

[ordos45]

Heh, glad to see I'm not the only one who goes to CNN.com when I'm bored. They've done this before, violate the DMZ, just never in a time as sensitive as the current one.

North Korea is in violationing of the 1953 agreement regarding the 38 parallel. North Korea has also expelled the IAEA. Here is a link DMZ violation by North Korea

[DukeLeto]

"America is one of the largest consumers of Iraqi oil"

yes that is correct. but total volume fluctuates from 4-7%. basically, we could do without Iraqi oil.

You're right. Why, what do we need Iraqi oil for when we can destroy the Alaskan wilderness?! ::) ::) ::)