Who is the great threat to world security again Iraq, Iran or N. Korea?

Iraq Forum

Who is the great threat to world security again Iraq, Iran or N. Korea?

So here we have it again. Since none of you “Saddam was a threat to the world” people are even bringing it up, I guess I will.

N. Korea has once again defied the Bush administration on the very ground he used for invading Iraq. For nearly 3 yrs now Kim Jong has kicked out UN inspectors, ripped UN seals off their nuclear facilities and restarted them, told the world they are creating uranium with centrifuges and spent rods, have clear direct evidence that they exported uranium to a terror sponsored state, and now to kick it all off has publicly declared they have nuclear weapons.

Yet we haven’t seen one piece of legislation sponsored by the Bush administration demanding Kim Jong fall into compliance. Instead it is Kim Jong making demands to the Bush administration and we have yet to hear of any ample response. Instead Bush’s response is to ask KJ to engage in multi-lateral talks.

Rumsfeld made a statement that he doesn’t know if N.K. have nuclear weapons, this despite their defiance and declaration in procuring them. This is in stark contrast to Saddam who declared he didn’t have nuclear weapons and chemicals while Rumsfeld was stating that he does and we knew “exactly where they are”.

So either two things are pressed before us. Either Rumfeld & company has learned by their errors in Iraq or they simply have no interest in fighting global terrorism. Given their rhetoric about Iran and their nuclear facility I find the former a little harder to believe. So while me make demands on Iran we spend little time paying attention to the region’s most greatest threat yet once again.

Doesn’t N.K need democracy? Don’t their citizens need relief from the oppressive Kim Jong regime responsible for killing and torturing thousands of them? Doesn’t this “axis of evil”, this “outpost of tyranny” need to fall into compliance by sponsored UN Resolutions? Haven’t they passed on WMD materials to terrorists who would use them? Why again are we pressuring Iran for compliance?

All of this can make one forget and get lost in the sauce when asking “Why again did we invade Iraq”?

Doesn't anyone think it strange and that maybe the world's upside down when it seems acceptable and becoming normal to ask questions such as who are the US military going to be ordered to attack next, which nation is going to get invaded or bombed by the US military? Where is Bush going to send the US troops next, to depose whichever leader he doesn't like now?

As for North Korea, the US only attacks relatively defensless countries which they think are a dead cert, hit-em and they'll quickly roll over and die sort of places. So military action in North Korea is out of the question.

I don't want to fall into simplistic considerations, however economy plays a key role here.
North Korea is factually a threat to the rest of the world for they have WMDs, they have a large military - what the value of the armament is remains to be examined ... might be sort of antiquated - they blackmail their neighbours and the free world in order to get oil and food in return. Fear is their product of exportation - not oil.

NK is under the influence of its mighty neighbor - ie China. China is very touchy regarding any challenge of its pré carré and given how its economy and the US' one are now dependent on one another, the US would have no interest in interfering there.

Economy ... is the deciphering key. Nothing to gain from an intervention there. So the best option remains to behave as detached as possible from what may happen ...

Oneofpeace is fully right to shed light on these contradictions.

Excellent posts from both of you. My point for posting was to draw out the positions and oppositions in this flagrant disregard of international law, however I would have liked to hear from the cheerleading section concerning these disclosures but as you see, there aren’t many takers.

I posted this in hopes of pointing out that Iraq is more about interests than WMD or freeing Iraqis. The Mid East has always been of interests to us in the US and the world for that matter. However, N.K is another story simply because there are not any interests to contradict the cons so we put no political or military pressures on Kim Jong.

JY pointed out something very significant with the US and China’s relationship with NK. For those disillusioned enough to think that we’re there to fight terrorism or free It’s becoming rather asinine to hold to your guns after so many contradicting facts are staring you directly in the face.

Since we seem to have the propensity of invading 3rd world countries incapable of putting up any real resistance, I’m sure we will proceed lightly with NK. However, they are directly contradicting all of Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq in the first place. If this don’t get you to understand that this is indeed about interests I believe many of you are simply beyond the point of reason.

Ok my take on this,

1. Just because Kim Jong says he has WMD doesn't mean he does. This was your guys biggest gripe about the U.S. going into Iraq. Now when it convenient to make your point it's relevant.
2. China is his next door neighbor and part of the 6 party talks.
3. Japan is very close and may develop their own Nuke to counter NK.
4. Where is also South Korea which will have something to say about it.
5. There are the 6 party negotiations going on which NK walked out on and said he only wanted to deal with the U.S. (why I have no idea)

What do you suggest we do?

Iran,

The EU is handling this ball, do you wish them to stop? Do you think the EU will drop the ball?

By the way guys, this thread seems to be about North Korea and not Iraq, so it will be moved to the NK forum.

This thread is very much about Iraq Ron. I don’t know why you moved it as much as other threads digress from their topics.

However, it’s about comparing the reasons why we went into Iraq and ignore the NK.

What’s with you supporters of Bush? He says he won’t talk because it’s about the neighbors too, we certainly Iraq wasn’t unique in this case. You sound like Runsfeld whe speaking of not knowing whether they have nukes or not. When Saddam said he didn’t have them, you believed these same people when they said he did.

Remember Libya? They are on the state sponsored terrorism list are they not? Did not NK ship them uranium? In fact, there’s more evidence there that Kim Jong has WMD than it was Iraq had them yet you can actually say you don’t know if they do?

Ron, you sound just like the Bush administration. You echo their every position which makes me wonder if you’re capable of your own thought processes.

I really wish you would move this thread back because it’s as much about Iraq as it is NK.

So then, a greater threat to world security could be the U.S.? That's an interesting perspective...

Ok I'll move it back, 6 to half dozen to the other. Just thought it was more about NK then Iraq.

Today China express that they wanted to be in the 6 party talks, I thought they were already in them. China wants NK to come back to the 6 way talks. So it looks like diplomacy is working.

Also I doubt that NK has the bomb, he is just blowing smoke.

But like I said Ron do you honestly believe that the world can take the risk when all the evidence shows us that N.Korea does have a few nukes knocking about.

The political consensus about N K is that they are blowing smoke to try to get some more free hand-outs, as they did from Clinton.

Bush is too savvy to fall for their rhetoric.

He wants other nations to zone in on them.

Well the view from the United nations, European Union, most Asia Pacific countries including S.Korea, experts on Nuclear weapons and a majority of Western security services believe that the North has nukes.

The attitude China has shown recently is an indicator that soemthing has happend in the past few months. China was at first involved in the 6 nation talks and then withdrew because they felt there was nothing to talk about, now they want to restart the 6 nation talks, i don't know why but maybe because now there is something to talk about. Keep in mind that China is the only country that is allowed access to N.Korea maybe they saw something that worries them or soemthing like that.

I never said they did not have the nukes. I said they are just looking for handouts.

They would be nuts to use the nukes, anyway.

The greatest threat to world security to the world is the U.S., as any superpower is. Just take a look at history, the biggest fish always is the biggest threat because of the actions taken to stay on top. Just as the Soviet Union, British Empire, Spanish Empire, Roman Empire, etc., etc. I wonder how many people will miss the point of this statement?

Not all big fish are bad fish. However I expect that one day the US will fall. Hopefully not in my lifetime of my children or grandchildren.

Millions of American men and women like my son put their life on the line so you can say, think or feel what ever you want. Use that freedom wisely. It’s their gift to you and it has cost many of them their lives.

God Bless America and Semper Fidelis!

—Merry K. Pantano
Proud mother of a Marine and founder of DefendtheDefenders.org

http://www.defendthedefenders.org/177/images/motif01.jpg

Bush savvy? Bush could be a lot of things but savvy is not one attribute that comes to mind.

However where was all this “savvy” when he decided to invade Iraq? Not only was it bad advice, he treated other nations like crap.

Kim Jong has made it clear what his intent is. However can we take that chance? Blowing smoke as someone put it doesn’t seem to be likely as it has already been proven that he shipped uranium to Libya.

We know KJ kicked out inspectors, removed UN seals and restarted his nuclear facility. How is it that some of you can take the position that he’s blowing smoke? I never heard him once say he would used them but they were a deterrent to an increasingly hostile tone to his country and regime.

In my humbled opinion, Bush isn’t paying enough attention to this matter. Instead he consistently concentrates on the M.E. and I hope this doesn’t come back to burn us in the butt later.

However, when weighing the political scales, NK presents a more complex situation than did a weakly depleted Iraq (with much more to gain). Though in the end they’d probably lose a military battle, the wake of such a war would be too costly for the US. NK has nothing to offer the US anyway but trouble so there is no urgency there.


PS. Thanks Ron for moving the thread back.

Oneof... Where's the intelligence? So far none of the intel says NK has a nuke. It's the exact same senerio as Iraq. But now you want to go after NK. Should we launch a first strike?

Ron although there are certainly similarities in Iraq and North Korea, there are significant differences between the two. Not only does Kim Jong publicly declare he has nuclear weapons, we know he restarted his nuclear facility, has made nuclear fuel and they positively possess uranium and centrifuges to enrich it.

Also, since Libya has now declared their defunct nuclear program, the inspection of their site show that their uranium has signatures from that of N Korea. So we now know that NK has exported uranium to a terror sponsored state.

This is well documented, a known fact, and KJ does not deny it.

As for Iraq, all we had was pictures from out of space and information from defectors. Everything Saddam had, we accused it of duel use though there was no evidence whatsoever that it was being used for such. In fact, although some things could have had duel usage, what they didn’t tell us is that it would have required significant modifications which would have made it third rate equipment at best to achieve such.

We have yet to sponsor one piece of legislation before the UN to pressure NK into compliance like we did with Iraq and we have NK’s public declaration of procurement of nukes.

So how is it that this is similar to Iraq and the so called intel debacle?

As far as launching a strike first, no I don't believe that is the route to take however how is it that you can believe we should in one case and not the other?

South Korea today says they doubt that NK has nukes.
So far it's speculation that they actually have a missle and warhead. Same as in Iraq.

Speculation? Is that why they procured uranium?

It is in the best interest of S.K. to say such since they know they would be number 1 on the target list should military intervention take place.

However the major difference in which you and your comrades conveniently overlook is unlike Saddam, KJ publicly declared he has them. We already know he would give them to terrorist since he shipped uranium to Libya.

No "yellow cake" episode speculations. This is uranium in hand and tested.

Imagine if you would that Saddam had restarted his nuclear facility (something he was accused of) and had uranium shipped to Al Qaida. Instead we want to point to Al Qaida in Iraq 10 yrs prior taking a dump somewhere in the desert as proof.

So again, which is less transparent? You do the math.

Can you prove they have a nuke warhead?

I think the point here is that it seems that the roles are reversed. What is with Saddam that you unquestionably support him.

The two are not much different. Both dictators, Both bragged about how much WMD they have.
Saddam bragged that he had Biological and Chemical weapons and would use them if the US attacked.
Kim Jong is bragging that he has the BOMB and will use it if the US attacks.

Now how are these two different????

Oh what I mean about the roles reversed, with Iraq, you were against the US doing anything. Now you are FOR the US doing something.

So now you're suggesting we go into NK blind, with no intel. Just on the word of Kim Jong Ill. Yet you chastized the US for going into Iraq with bad intel on the word of Saddam.

I don't know which is worse? Bad intel or no intel.

You should be telling us that we shouldn't go into NK because we don't have enough intelligence to confirm that they have a nuke, just like you critized the US for going into Iraq with flawed Intel.

Which way do you want it? Was the US right with Iraq? Because if you are right with NK then must agree that we were right with Iraq.

I couldn't think of a stupider action than to go into North Korea, intel or no intel. Any intel regarding NK is only useful for negotiation purposes because that is what is going to happen with NK.

And anyway we're only talking about NK in this way because stupidly Bush put them in the axis of evil trio, not the smartest of diplomatic ways to begin negotiations.

America knew the "evil empire" Soviets had nukes pointing at the US for decades. It's something we lived with because the alternative could have been much worse.

Get real—nobody's going into NK! We don't have to. NK is figuratively, if not literally, near-bankrupt economically. They are completely dependant upon other nations and would not survive isolationism from the rest of the world. Sanction the heck out of 'em and watch 'em buckle like a napkin stood on end.

Iran is a different story… Iran is a real threat.

NK wants to be respected as a super power, but they also want to quietly beg and bribe other nations to support them (without tarnishing their prideful image), kind of like an American Liberal on welfare. No offense to Liberals on welfare.

I think NK would be much better of giving away their nukes and publically begging the world for help. They need it.

Nope, blame America.

Bizaare analogy. The mind boggles. Are there a lot of liberal beggers in the US threatening people? Funny but the majority of beggers and homeless people in Britain are ex-military, but there you go.

Blame the forces.

I know my analagy is skewed. It's the attitude I'm talking about. Sit back and dictate. Pride first, work second. Maybe I'm comparing N. Korea to a few special liberals that I know. I can't begin to compare N. Korea to all liberals because I don't know all liberals.

I repeat.......

All N K wants is handouts.

When a country has nukes they won't be advertising so.

China will put a leash on N. K.

No worry.......


Iran is now in a pincer position between the US and Israeli forces.


They won't start anything either.


Bush's solution to improve the U S social security program is more of a threat for future retirees.


The fastest growing nation is now China. Their growth depends on other nations using their output. Also foreign investment in their country.

The world is leaning more toward common ground interests than starting more conflict.

As I have stated in the past...when seeking answers...follow the money!!!!!!

That's right ... a little bit cynical, but true. North Korea is a danger that can be contained given the balance of forces in the area, both economically and militarily speaking.
As I said - no interest to interfere there for the US.
Iran is of another concern. Not a real another threat either. But surely a more convenient target. Iran under control ... with a second western-friendly government there along with the Iraqi one ... weighing together in the ME ... isn't it a dream more than a neo-con would dream of ? Hmmm...

All this talk of the dangers of NK or Iran or Syria is a red herring. What does anyone mean by threat? The US has not been seriously threatened by anyone since the Soviet Union existed and even then it was clear to both countries what nuclear war would mean.

Iraq was never a threat, Syria isn't, neither is Iran or North Korea. Today the only military threat to the US is Russia and China because of their size and nukes but again why would they use them?

The only real threat to US dominance is economic and that is real and it comes from Europe, China and Russia (with it's enormous untapped oil wealth).

This is the real "war" that's going on right now and terrorism is just the excuse and reason the public are given to hide the fact that government's priorities is, as it's always been, self-interest.

(This is not to say that terrorism cannot cause huge damage before anyone brings it up but it's relatively minor in the big scheme of things).

“This is the real "war" that's going on right now and terrorism is just the excuse and reason the public are given to hide the fact that government's priorities is, as it's always been, self-interest.”

[i]h@ts[/b]


This is something I just don’t think Ron is grasping here. When I read his posts, it seems to endorse that we (US) are making war in the ME purely out of benevolence when certainly it is evident to many and obscured to a few.

Again Ron, Saddam never declared he had WMD since pre Gulf War. Your insistence that he has is inaccurate. However Kim Jong has but lets take it from there.

You say we shouldn’t go there on KJ’s word alone. I posed two questions to you. First, why is it that he has uranium and why did he ship it to Libya? This is in clear violation of International Law is it not?

Secondly, how is it that you endorse rolling into Iraq on nothing more than conjecture while saying it is conjecture that we should roll into NK? We have rock solid evidence that KJ shipped uranium to Libya. Certainly nothing we produced about Iraq was rock solid.

Let me make something clear. It’s not that we subscribe to invading NK, we’re trying to point out the double standard. In other words, our reasons for invading Iraq was inspired not by terrorism but “self-interests”. If Bush was to have us believe we needed to invade Iraq then certainly he would be pressuring NK in like manner.

A. JK kicked out inspectors
B. He then removed UN seals from nuclear facility
C. He restarted that facility
D. He made rocket fuel for the nukes
E. He shipped uranium to a terror sponsored state
F. He openly defies Bush, dares him to invade
G. He publicly declares he has WMD

Is it your contention that now we should wait because we did make a mistake with Iraq? Or is it just that you’re like USA1 and believes despite all KJ’s defiance and actions, we’re to simply dismiss it because we have no proof he has nuke warheads?

See, if you believe we shouldn’t go into NK that’s as good as saying that Bush was wrong about Iraq (or what he was telling us).

I think it is you who show lack of consistency. All others are merely pointing out is that we are not interested in Iran and making them the next subject of “sponsoring terrorism” while KJ still remains unchecked by this administration.

It is ridiculous to think that we invaded Iraq to secure America. And I quote

“The US has not been seriously threatened by anyone since the Soviet Union existed”
[i]h@ts[/b]

None of us agree on everything one another says, however there are those that seem to be a wee bit more on top of things than others are.

CORRECTIONS
I should have proof read sorry please strike out the top first double post


“This is the real "war" that's going on right now and terrorism is just the excuse and reason the public are given to hide the fact that government's priorities is, as it's always been, self-interest.”

h@ts


This is something I just don’t think Ron is grasping here. When I read his posts, it seems to endorse that we (US) are making war in the ME purely out of benevolence when certainly it is evident to many and obscured to a few.

Again Ron, Saddam never declared he had WMD since pre Gulf War. Your insistence that he has is inaccurate. However Kim Jong has but lets take it from there.

You say we shouldn’t go there on KJ’s word alone. I posed two questions to you. First, why is it that he has uranium and why did he ship it to Libya? This is in clear violation of International Law is it not?

Secondly, how is it that you endorse rolling into Iraq on nothing more than conjecture while saying it is conjecture that we shouldn’t roll into NK? We have rock solid evidence that KJ shipped uranium to Libya. Certainly nothing we produced about Iraq was rock solid.

Let me make something clear. It’s not that we subscribe to invading NK, we’re trying to point out the double standard. In other words, our reasons for invading Iraq were inspired not by terrorism but “self-interests”. If Bush was to have us believe we needed to invade Iraq then certainly he would be pressuring NK in like manner.

A. JK kicked out inspectors
B. He then removed UN seals from nuclear facility
C. He restarted that facility
D. He made rocket fuel for the nukes
E. He shipped uranium to a terror sponsored state
F. He openly defies Bush, dares him to invade
G. He publicly declares he has WMD

Is it your contention that now we should wait because we did make a mistake with Iraq? Or is it just that you’re like USA1 and believes despite all KJ’s defiance and actions, we’re to simply dismiss it because we have no proof he has nuke warheads?

See, if you believe we shouldn’t go into NK that’s as good as saying that Bush was wrong about Iraq (or what he was telling us).

I think it is you who show lack of consistency. All others are merely pointing out is that we are now interested in Iran and making them the next subject of “sponsoring terrorism” while KJ still remains unchecked by this administration.

It is ridiculous to think that we’ve invaded Iraq to secure America. And I quote

“The US has not been seriously threatened by anyone since the Soviet Union existed”
h@ts

None of us agree on everything one another says, however there are those that seem to be a wee bit on top of things than others are.

Ron, I’m curious about something. Over in the NK topic you posted this below.

Did you miss the word "possibly".

Based on the Intel "AT THE TIME", it was right to go into Iraq. If we had the same info then as we do now then maybe no. There is a lot of controversy over this as you know because even Hanz Blix, David Kay and Charlie Daufer all agree that Saddam still had things in place to continue his WMD programs. There were still dual use facilities as per all of the inspectors before and after. Saddam still intended to work on his Nuclear programs. Sanctions didn't work, inspections did work. So the question arises as to if not now, when?

However, Going a bit further, based on the human rights violations, it was right to remove Saddam. His people (except for the Ba'athist hated him)

We played with Saddams ball for 12 years and Saddam was winning. Solution, take away his ball.

oneofpeace said:

“Dual use facilities” was who’s accusation? I can use a can of Raid to kill a roach or to poison someone’s food. That would make that dual usage wouldn’t it?

Funny thing is this. None of it was found to be so. Did Saddam keep documentation to restart a program? Probably so but that is far from procurement, especially of tons.

So let’s look at NK. They don’t have dual use, they have a nuclear facility in which they restarted. Now we find they shipped uranium to a terrorist state and claim to have nukes. Saddam never did any of this and it doesn’t even make you hesitate.

Kim Jong has tortured and killed thousands has he not? Are these not “Human Rights Violations”?

So what would constituted proof to you? If the CIA says Saddam has them, then we were right to go in. They say that NK has them and it’s not enough. Don’t you even have any questions as to why Bush isn’t pressuring NK as he was Iraq? Twelve years of US sponsored UN Resolutions Saddam violated? KJ can’t violate any because we have yet to sponsor a resolution against him.

Do you see why I have a hard time understanding your position Ron? It doesn't compute.

Who is the great threat to world security again Iraq, Iran or N. Korea?

Is this all we have to choose from in this thread?
Then, none of the above.

I would say Al Qaeda it the greated threat to world security.

I would say Islamic jihad....in all the different forms and factions it takes....including Al Qaeda....they started the assault on the US...now they all seem to be converging to fulfill one purpose:

Islamitize the planet by the sword. (or whatever it takes)

Al Qaeda is a miniscule threat to anyone. They attacked the US with aeroplanes that they had to hijack. It really is laughable that anyone could think that Al Qaeda is a threat to anyone with the kind of military that the US has. Please explain how Al Qaeda are going take over America or threaten the world?

h@ts
Actually what al qaeda did was extremely creative...they didn't use any of their own assets (besides their people)...they used American assets.

Thousands and thousands of them were being trained in Aghanistan during the 1990's. The Clinton administration and the various CIA administrations knew about it. And they turned their backs on it, even when special ops forces and CIA asked for the go ahead to blast the training facilities. There was one meager blast after the US embassy bombings in Africa...did little harm.

Taken together Islamic jihad is the biggest menace on the planet.

Since you live in England...you should know that one of their ploys is to move into a country and breed and breed and breed themselves into power.
If Europe isn't careful....they will be completely overrun just by sheer number.

And were you aware, that Islam follows their own laws in England...they have their own little parliament...and say "bugger" to your own set of laws?
Be aware...

Al Qaeda is a word to label different groups of malevolent individuals worldwide. it is more a concept with an icon - Bin Laden - than a structured entity and in no way it can be assessed as a military force by comparison with the US one.
The danger is right now with large groups of muslim tribes, for example in Pakistan, who may overthrow their government to install an islamic regime. And this time this regime would really have the nukes as a prerequisite to blackmail the western world.
NK is under control as far as they are given food and oil in exchange of the fear they export. Mighty neighbor China is watching over it.
Iran and Syria are perfect in the roles of the villains. They are certainly not models of democracies, but let's say that they are convenient targets for ME great reshapers theoricians.

JY

JY_French is absolutely right, Al Qaeda is not the all mighty threatening animal that certain Western leaders want us to believe. The majority of Muslims not surprisingly rejected Al Qaeda's form of Islamic fundamentalism in the 80's and 90's in the Middle East. People like Bin Laden are living under the mistaken belief that they defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan therefore they have the ability to take over the whole world. It's nonsense.

Sadly our governments are quick to spread the delusional idea that terrorists are all somehow connected. It's ridiculouos.

The real threats are nation states with weapons and military forces. Pakistan, China, Russia, countries in Europe, the USA etc.

h@ts
You keep emphasizing AlQaeda...what about Islamic jihad in its many forms?

Yes, America is a leviathan force...but it lacks the subterfuge of these groups....

A prominent strategy in war is...when they are big...you are small....
when they are exposed...you are in hiding...
basically whatever your enemy is...be the opposite...and you are tough to beat.

ISLAM IS CONNECTED....ONE MIND...MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD ISLAMIC TO FOLLOW ALLAH.....by any means necessary...

You have to understand their mindset.
They don't need a leviathan force to wreak havoc!

Now, if Islam joins forces with Russia and China....which they have on some levels....the majority of their weapons come from these countries.....then, Houston, we've got a problem.

Why would Russia and China join forces with islamists ? Even undemocratic countries leaders know that you can only play with fire to a certain extent lest to be burnt yourself ... Islamists are pursuing an agenda of their own and if their interest might be the same that those countries' ones now and then ... it is far from encouraging them to set an alliance.
Remember - both Russia and China are experiencing problems domestically with islamists. Tchnenya for Russia, Xinjiang for China (to a lesser extent). They know first hand what the problem is.

Al Qaeda = The Base

Al Qaeda is set up to bring Islamic Extremist together for a common goal, take down the west.

Al Qaeda = Osama bin Laden. chief Financier and organizer. He has set up his organization so that parts have no idea what the other parts are doing until it all comes together. Plots go for years before the plan comes together ie Sleeper Cells.

Zarqawi in Iraq is nothing compared to what bin Laden can and will do. Kind of like Zarqawi is the a military front for Al Qaeda, just like the US Marines are a military front in Iraq for the US. Zarqawi is not going to launch a high scale attack it's not his job. Bin Laden however is organizing something big, bigger than the last event 9/11.

Do not underestimate bin Laden and those working for him. Word on the street is that bin Laden is trying to aquire or has aquired material for a dirty bomb and is trying to work out a way to get it into the U.S. If he can not get it to the US he will have a back up plan. Great Britian, Italy, Canada or Saudi Arabia to name a few.

The question is not IF, but WHEN?

Why are you guys, JY and H@ts, skirting my question?

You keep emphasizing AlQaeda...what about Islamic jihad in its many forms?
ISLAM IS CONNECTED....ONE MIND...MAKE THE ENTIRE WORLD ISLAMIC TO FOLLOW ALLAH.....by any means necessary...

You have to understand their mindset.
They don't need a leviathan force to wreak havoc!

Communism is as bad as the West and Israel in Islam's eyes...because it negates a notion of Allah...it's a completely secular government and society.

When it's all said and done, if Islam with Russia and China and the EU find it expedient to annihilate the USA for whatever reasons and join forces to do so...it's over, baby.

Strange bedfellows...and it's only beginning.

Islam NEEDS the USA out of the way if they are ever going to be successful in "acquiring" the Holy Land.

Sowhat no one is trying to skirt your question I guess. Yes islamists are numerous enough to pose a serious threat. Why you are associating the EU and islam and China and ... whoever else in a possible common force willing to annihilate the US is ... kind of a strange scenario. I don't get it. The EU and islamists against the US ... I know everything is possible in this universe but I must admit I simply don't see how and why. It would be a suicide for us westerners, don't you think so ?

JY
The world vs the US. (N. America)
Yes I see that. I don't like it, but I see it.
The US reputation as a police force and meddler, imperialist, war monger, greedy, only out for themselves....who in the world, besides Israel likes us?
And who in the world is helping Israel? Not that Israel needs help, but that is how it stands.
And so why do you think the US is doing what she is doing....believe it or not we are fighting for survival in the long run....life as we know it...we HAVE to maintain our "standard of living" or in many eyes...we are doomed!

You know this is another parallel debate but it is if you want to maintain your standard of living that YOU and WE are doomed. For such a high consumption of fossilized natural ressources as is the US' one is proven to be detrimental to the environment.
Fighting for survival in the long run should precisely follow different objectives than securing the ressources abroad whose release through gases in the atmosphere is endangering all of us.
There would only be a case where all mankind would band together the US - in case it turns into a dictatorship endangering the world.

JY
I agree. I am so over the fossil fuel mentality I can taste it.

Why do you think the US is selling a policy of spreading democracy to the world?
If we just up and started a war in the ME for the oil that we so desperately need to drive our SUV's, and fly our planes, and make our plastic music CD's
as the conquerer that we are....the world probably would have fought against us. We would have appeared as a dictatorship...

But as long as we are trying to spread good 'ol "democracy" (which by the way, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Republic) and bring freedom to others in the process....we will be able to have our "standard of living" maintained for just a little while longer.

I'd be just as happy living in a tent in the mountains, living off the land. But that's just me...

Ron Ackerman: Al Qaeda = The Base

Al Qaeda is a name invented by the US given to an organisation that financed certain attacks in the 90's so they could prosecute Bin Laden in his absense, using laws set up to prosecute organisations like the Mafia. Before this there was no one group called Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is set up to bring Islamic Extremist together for a common goal, take down the west.

The Islamic extremist's goals were to bring about fundamental Islamic states in the Middle East. THEY FAILED.

Al Qaeda = Osama bin Laden. chief Financier and organizer. He has set up his organization so that parts have no idea what the other parts are doing until it all comes together. Plots go for years before the plan comes together ie Sleeper Cells.

Bin Laden was indeed the man with the money who financed terrorist attacks. Not only did he finance the most successful ever terrorist attack on the US he's also a member of one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, who coincidentally have very close business relationship with the Bush family, who's son just happens to be President. What are the chances

Zarqawi in Iraq is nothing compared to what bin Laden can and will do. Kind of like Zarqawi is the a military front for Al Qaeda, just like the US Marines are a military front in Iraq for the US. Zarqawi is not going to launch a high scale attack it's not his job. Bin Laden however is organizing something big, bigger than the last event 9/11.

Zarqawi is like the Scarlet Pimpernel, conveniently elusive.

Do not underestimate bin Laden and those working for him. Word on the street is that bin Laden is trying to aquire or has aquired material for a dirty bomb and is trying to work out a way to get it into the U.S. If he can not get it to the US he will have a back up plan. Great Britian, Italy, Canada or Saudi Arabia to name a few.

DIRTY BOMBS DO NOT WORK. Governments have known this for years but somehow failed to inform the public. I wonder why?

The question is not IF, but WHEN?

The exact words used in a speach by Tony Blair 3 years ago to scare the British public and get them to support HIS and Bush's war in Iraq. It's an utterly meaningless statement with only one intention - to scare people into allowing governments to do as the please.

Osama bin Laden has been dis-owned by his family. His father was a very respected man in Saudi Arabia and built schools and roads and much more. The bin Laden wealth was split something like 45 ways. He had many children to go with his many wifes.

A good 90% of the instability on this planet is caused by the US drive for empire . Anyone that can't see this has blinders on.

Show me the empire that we have built in the last 30 years.

Depends on what is meant by "Empire". Certainly we're building an economic empire for sure.

I do believe however democracy will be better for the ME but mostly on the diplomatic front. Although violence is necessary sometimes it was not at the time Bush hastily chose to do so.

I'm glad Bush is changing his tone and visiting the European nations to mend fences. Maybe he's learned something over the last four years after all.

It's an empire without borders.
All the world leaders are slaves to it.

The economic and military strength of America means it can dictate to smaller countries. Example: the US, through the world bank and the WTO, can force a country to sell off its assets and utilities as the only way of getting much needed aid and development loans.

So once the big countries buy into the smaller nations the rich countries want their interests protected, this is when bad governments get protected, military coups are supported, and in extreme cases democracies are overthrown.

America, like many rich nations has interests all over the world. Call it an empire if you like but America will use whatever it takes to protect these interests, and weigh the playing field in its own favour, ie freetrade tends to benefit the rich countries.

The tentacles of this monster (military/industrial complex) go deep within Europe as well H@ts...And every other government that embraces globalization.
Please stop pointing fingers at the USA only and start looking in your own backyard.

H@ts
While America takes the heat, the corruption goes deep throughout Europe and the rest of the globalized world. The plan cannot sustain a truly free thinking people and America as we have known in times past is no longer. She is a slave to the wealthy merchants throughout the globe. There will be no talk of nation states in the future...the EU is the second bastard, the first being the UN.
We'll all be just colonies for the world economic system...in fact we really are now...it will be made official soon enough.

Is it any surprise that Bush's first trip was to Brussels? There are no amends to be made, just solidification of plans...and the attempt to get the masses on track. The latter will not be difficult in lieu of people's groupthink.