PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Current Events
     What To Do About North Korea
       Who's more of a threat?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For awhile all we have been talking about is Iraq. Now, however, a new threat has appeared in the world. That threat is North Korea. Under Kim Jong-Il, North Korea has become even more fruitless and unproductive than ever. The country is militarized and may already have a nuclear weapon. So does this mean that North Korea is something we should be more worried about? The answer is no, and for many reasons.

North Korea hasn’t done well under Kim Jong-Il at all. The countries’ economy is now 1/37 the size of it’s smaller neighbor, South Korea. Thirty percent of the population is now in the military with about half the budget being spent on the military. The country has the fourth largest army in the world, around a million people.

“So why should we be more worried about Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Saddam doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but North Korea does. We should be worried about him.” Wrong! North Korea may already have weapons of mass destruction, but will they use them? If they did all US aid to the country would stop for sure. They depend on US aid to keep the country going, fact. We supply a lot of food, too. They don’t use it on their people, they use it on their army. So if they nuke us the army will starve. The only thing North Korea is doing is trying to get more money. They figure that they can threaten us with nuclear weapons and get more money, food, and oil out of us.

“Bush is a hypocrite! He’s using force on Iraq but he says he wants a peaceful solution to the North Korean issue.” Ok. In the first Gulf War, Allied forces made their way right through the country to near Baghdad in about 100 hours, Saddam’s troops surrendering in waves. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction on other countries and his own people. He has invaded his neighbors. North Korea has a million man army. US losses would be staggering should we take North Korea on. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is right near the border. Chances are that North Korea would invade the South and takeover the capital with their huge army. Kim Jong-Il is a madman. He may use a nuke if he had one to kill as many US personnel and civilians as possible, but only if invaded because he needs US aid to keep the country going.

Who is more of a threat? The man who depends on the US to keep his country going who may have nukes but will not use them, or the man who is trying to develop nukes to use without recourse against the US, Israel, or his own people. You decide that one.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 6:24 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
ScoobyZOD

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

North Korea does just want money, oil, and food. The US is concentrated on iraq and north korea just wants attention. Saddam is more of threat, for this reason: he's not afraid. North Korea is all talk. Kim Jong knows that any attack on the US would...basically not be good. Saddam has nothing to lose. Kim Jong...a country.


-------
Teenagers are more intelligent than you may think.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 7:56 PM on March 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't know that Saddam was planning to use his elusive weapons, nor, may I add, did Mr. Bush. You seem to say that America was justified in attacking Iraq not only because you could, but because Saddam may have had weapons of mass destruction and he may have been planning to use them. Is this what Bush is going to say to the parents of the more than 500 dead Americans? (not to mention the American auditors)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:12 PM on February 6, 2004 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ScoobyZOD at 9:56 PM on March 6, 2003 :
North Korea does just want money, oil, and food. The US is concentrated on iraq and north korea just wants attention. Saddam is more of threat, for this reason: he's not afraid. North Korea is all talk. Kim Jong knows that any attack on the US would...basically not be good. Saddam has nothing to lose. Kim Jong...a country.


Said well!

Saddam has been captured and is no threat any more,  Iraq has a (democratic government now)  and will soon be building their own trained militia,  the U.S. will keep a very close eye on N.K. all they want is a seat at the world table, and some respect.  I don't think they are on the right path for that though.  Remember now China doesn't like N.K. having Nukes either,  and they will not be very happy if we were to  just waltz on in over there.  If N.K. sells their Nukes to terrorists we will act on that, but I don't think they will do that.  It will be a pissin' contest and China will help put pressure on them to "simmer down."  The real next major issue we are facing is Iran.  They have a national median age of only 24yrs. old.  This is bad, America's is 34-36yrs. old
Iran National Stats
America's National Stats
Now with that said,  I would guess that we will try to impose some sort of U.N. Sanctions on them, and that won't work.  Then China will stay neutral because that's their policy.  Germany and France may voice a little opposition, but will be recommended to keep quiet.  Everyone else at the U.N. has no real say in the matter.
So we will probably go into there after that.  All this means a long road for the U.S. and at the same time we got N.K. acting up.  If they do really have a Nuke, they only have 1 or maybe 2.  If they were to shoot it at us, we would have no choice but to turn there little country into glass.

As a U.S. Soldier that's what's going to happen and Bush has enough time to make it happen with Iran.  Also Iran is sceduled to be in control of the oil for 2005.  That's part of it for sure!

Thanks!  



-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 8:31 PM on February 15, 2005 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We need to fight N Korea NOW, before they are too heavily into nuclear weapons.  Iran must be dealth with also before they are too heavily into nuclear weapons.

USA is the only Superpower.. lets use that muscle and take down Iran, N Korea, Syria -- i mean wipe em off the map with a NUKE

Either we do it.. or ISRAEL will nuke Iran for us.  BUSH its up to you.. or the next President will have to deal with it.

WE have reached the point in nuclear history where we all have to make a nuclear choice... lets get it on baby!

Nuclear worldwide war is here.. it is not gonna go hide in a closet..lol  We cannot escape the ultimate nuclear confrontation people.. Nuclear War is coming!

I love it!
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:25 AM on October 7, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You do understand that there are enough nuclear weapons in the world now that if a nuclear war was started YOU are most likely going to die, right?  I mean, you do understand this?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:41 AM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong.. nuclear war is surviveable.  Just find a place to live where the nuclear fallout is minimal.  And no, all the nuclear weapons on earth if set off at same time would not destroy the Earth.. silly man
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:03 AM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Didn't say it would destroy the EARTH.  Try reading what was actually written instead of projecting your confusion on to the question.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:12 AM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JetSunn is wrong, anyway. The USA alone has enough nuclear weapons to roast the Earth 23 times over.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 10, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.