It will not be identical but very similar.
Bush's mistake in Iraq will be repeated by Obama in North Korea.
It will be bigger and more costly. It will be bloody. It will turn the world up side down.
It is all about WMD. Yes Make No Mistake About It.
Bush accused Saddam of have WMD, when there was indeed NONE.
Obama forced North Korea to produce and fire WMD from NONE to BANGS!
That is a BANG with letter S behind. There will be multiple BANGS!
North Koreans initially had no nukes, and were complying with UN inspection and they demolished down and disarmed their own reactor during Bush era:
But under the wrong policies of Obama Administration, North Korea was forced to reverse it's stand and tough up against USA. They were threatened internationally for lunching peaceful satellite. They are isolated forced to eventually to blast nuclear tests and long range missiles. And the Obama Administration will push only harder and further just like what Bush did with Saddam & Iraq.
The consequences is obvious.
There is one thing very different. THE BIG DIFFERENCE.
That is Saddam did NOT have ANY WMD, Kim have GOT IT and TESTED WORKING and is being forced in a great hurry to produce more.
It was quite SAFE actually for Bush to invade Iraq because Iraq got NO WMD.
However it is entirely UNSAFE to even provoke North Korea, because WMD is obviously there.
Obama is lighting the fuse of North Korean Nuke.
White Bush & Brown Saddam was a wrong combination. Resulting in the unfinished Iraq war.
Black Obama & Yellow Kim is an even worst combination. The result will be even more spectacular, this is not racist this is not about color, because eventually there will be a bright white flash and then black mushroom cloud. That's all it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085991...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN3aWxsbmtvcmVhc2g-
Will Offshore Searches Slow North Korean Nukes -- or Spark a Military Confrontation?
Time.com
A South Korean navy vessel takes part in a drill against possible attacks by North Korea in the East Sea off Donghae Reuters – A South Korean navy vessel take part in a drill against possible attacks by North Korea in the East Sea …
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – 36 mins ago
After more than 15 years of largely fruitless diplomacy, the U.S. and its allies are preparing a high-seas quarantine to try to ensure that North Korea's nuclear knowledge doesn't leach beyond its borders. While the details remain to be worked out, U.S. President Barack Obama - after meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung Bak in Washington on June 16 - indicated that the battle to contain North Korea's atomic arsenal is headed offshore. "This is not simply a U.S. policy - this is an international policy," Obama said of the evolving plan to search North Korean vessels suspected of ferrying arms or nuclear components. "This was part of what the [U.N.] Security Council resolution calls for - the interdiction of arms shipments."
The tough words could potentially lead to open hostilities. Pyongyang has repeatedly said that it views any forced inspections of its fleets to be an act of war, and an angry North Korea could fire on ships seeking to inspect one of its vessels, launching attacks from other ships in its navy, from shore batteries or from missiles. "While North Korea's most recent aggression has not yet led to violent outbreaks in the region, such clashes are a distinct possibility in the near future," warned a report issued on June 16 by the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. "In fact, North Korea's well-documented history of intentionally inciting small-scale violence makes escalation more likely." (See suspected doctored pictures of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.)
While the U.N. resolution doesn't authorize the use of military force by navies conducting the interdictions, it does permit U.S. and allied warships to challenge vessels suspected of ferrying arms and nuclear components on the high seas. The international community, including traditional North Korean protector China, seems to be willing to try to thwart Pyongyang's nuclear proliferation efforts, as the New York Times first reported on June 16. "I've been talking with the Chinese since the late [1970s] about North Korea," former U.S. negotiator Evans Revere, now president of the Korea Society, told a Senate panel last week. Beijing's attitude is shifting. "I've had a couple of Chinese officials actually use the term 'security liability' in their descriptions of North Korea today," Revere said. (See pictures of the tense border between North and South Korea.)
Under last week's U.N. resolution, once the U.S. or its allies locate a suspect ship, they would then request permission from the North Korean government, not from the ship's crew, to come aboard to inspect its contents. The expected denial from Pyongyang would trigger a notification to the Security Council, which in turn would urge the North Koreans to direct the ship to a convenient port for inspection. Most North Korean ships lack the ability to travel long distances, meaning they pull into harbors relatively frequently for fuel and supplies. "There are many countries in the region that we believe would be cooperative with us in trying to persuade the North Koreans to allow us to inspect their cargo once they were to take a port call for refueling," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said on June 16. He added that the U.S. and its allies have sufficient naval power in the region to monitor North Korean shipping without dispatching additional vessels.
Although such actions, even if successful, would play no direct part in ridding North Korea of its nuclear arsenal, they could play an indirect role. The weapons trade "has been a main source of revenue for the North for quite some time," Morrell said. Choking it off, he said, would reduce funding for Pyongyang's nuclear program as well as halt the proliferation of arms to other countries and terrorists, "where it could pose a threat to us and our allies."
"It's basically tough talk [but] moderate action," says retired Navy rear admiral Stephen Pietropaoli, who now runs the nonprofit Navy League. "The alternative - forced boarding - would almost certainly lead to confrontation; possible loss of life; possible retaliation; and a high degree of likelihood that the North Koreans could sucker us into a confrontation over a load of Kewpie dolls or something equally nonthreatening." (See pictures of the suspected Syrian nuclear reactor allegedly built with the help of North Korea.)
Pentagon officials acknowledge that their track record on monitoring North Korean shipping leaves something to be desired. Pyongyang played a major role in the development of a nuclear reactor that Syria was building until the Israeli air force bombed it into rubble in 2007. U.S. intelligence never has been able to identify what North Korean ships, if any, were involved in its construction. Which raises a troubling notion: North Korea's nuclear know-how may be able to elude even the tightest naval noose.
Bush's mistake in Iraq will be repeated by Obama in North Korea.
It will be bigger and more costly. It will be bloody. It will turn the world up side down.
It is all about WMD. Yes Make No Mistake About It.
Bush accused Saddam of have WMD, when there was indeed NONE.
Obama forced North Korea to produce and fire WMD from NONE to BANGS!
That is a BANG with letter S behind. There will be multiple BANGS!
North Koreans initially had no nukes, and were complying with UN inspection and they demolished down and disarmed their own reactor during Bush era:
But under the wrong policies of Obama Administration, North Korea was forced to reverse it's stand and tough up against USA. They were threatened internationally for lunching peaceful satellite. They are isolated forced to eventually to blast nuclear tests and long range missiles. And the Obama Administration will push only harder and further just like what Bush did with Saddam & Iraq.
The consequences is obvious.
There is one thing very different. THE BIG DIFFERENCE.
That is Saddam did NOT have ANY WMD, Kim have GOT IT and TESTED WORKING and is being forced in a great hurry to produce more.
It was quite SAFE actually for Bush to invade Iraq because Iraq got NO WMD.
However it is entirely UNSAFE to even provoke North Korea, because WMD is obviously there.
Obama is lighting the fuse of North Korean Nuke.
White Bush & Brown Saddam was a wrong combination. Resulting in the unfinished Iraq war.
Black Obama & Yellow Kim is an even worst combination. The result will be even more spectacular, this is not racist this is not about color, because eventually there will be a bright white flash and then black mushroom cloud. That's all it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/085991...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN3aWxsbmtvcmVhc2g-
Will Offshore Searches Slow North Korean Nukes -- or Spark a Military Confrontation?
Time.com
A South Korean navy vessel takes part in a drill against possible attacks by North Korea in the East Sea off Donghae Reuters – A South Korean navy vessel take part in a drill against possible attacks by North Korea in the East Sea …
By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – 36 mins ago
After more than 15 years of largely fruitless diplomacy, the U.S. and its allies are preparing a high-seas quarantine to try to ensure that North Korea's nuclear knowledge doesn't leach beyond its borders. While the details remain to be worked out, U.S. President Barack Obama - after meeting with South Korean President Lee Myung Bak in Washington on June 16 - indicated that the battle to contain North Korea's atomic arsenal is headed offshore. "This is not simply a U.S. policy - this is an international policy," Obama said of the evolving plan to search North Korean vessels suspected of ferrying arms or nuclear components. "This was part of what the [U.N.] Security Council resolution calls for - the interdiction of arms shipments."
The tough words could potentially lead to open hostilities. Pyongyang has repeatedly said that it views any forced inspections of its fleets to be an act of war, and an angry North Korea could fire on ships seeking to inspect one of its vessels, launching attacks from other ships in its navy, from shore batteries or from missiles. "While North Korea's most recent aggression has not yet led to violent outbreaks in the region, such clashes are a distinct possibility in the near future," warned a report issued on June 16 by the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. "In fact, North Korea's well-documented history of intentionally inciting small-scale violence makes escalation more likely." (See suspected doctored pictures of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.)
While the U.N. resolution doesn't authorize the use of military force by navies conducting the interdictions, it does permit U.S. and allied warships to challenge vessels suspected of ferrying arms and nuclear components on the high seas. The international community, including traditional North Korean protector China, seems to be willing to try to thwart Pyongyang's nuclear proliferation efforts, as the New York Times first reported on June 16. "I've been talking with the Chinese since the late [1970s] about North Korea," former U.S. negotiator Evans Revere, now president of the Korea Society, told a Senate panel last week. Beijing's attitude is shifting. "I've had a couple of Chinese officials actually use the term 'security liability' in their descriptions of North Korea today," Revere said. (See pictures of the tense border between North and South Korea.)
Under last week's U.N. resolution, once the U.S. or its allies locate a suspect ship, they would then request permission from the North Korean government, not from the ship's crew, to come aboard to inspect its contents. The expected denial from Pyongyang would trigger a notification to the Security Council, which in turn would urge the North Koreans to direct the ship to a convenient port for inspection. Most North Korean ships lack the ability to travel long distances, meaning they pull into harbors relatively frequently for fuel and supplies. "There are many countries in the region that we believe would be cooperative with us in trying to persuade the North Koreans to allow us to inspect their cargo once they were to take a port call for refueling," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said on June 16. He added that the U.S. and its allies have sufficient naval power in the region to monitor North Korean shipping without dispatching additional vessels.
Although such actions, even if successful, would play no direct part in ridding North Korea of its nuclear arsenal, they could play an indirect role. The weapons trade "has been a main source of revenue for the North for quite some time," Morrell said. Choking it off, he said, would reduce funding for Pyongyang's nuclear program as well as halt the proliferation of arms to other countries and terrorists, "where it could pose a threat to us and our allies."
"It's basically tough talk [but] moderate action," says retired Navy rear admiral Stephen Pietropaoli, who now runs the nonprofit Navy League. "The alternative - forced boarding - would almost certainly lead to confrontation; possible loss of life; possible retaliation; and a high degree of likelihood that the North Koreans could sucker us into a confrontation over a load of Kewpie dolls or something equally nonthreatening." (See pictures of the suspected Syrian nuclear reactor allegedly built with the help of North Korea.)
Pentagon officials acknowledge that their track record on monitoring North Korean shipping leaves something to be desired. Pyongyang played a major role in the development of a nuclear reactor that Syria was building until the Israeli air force bombed it into rubble in 2007. U.S. intelligence never has been able to identify what North Korean ships, if any, were involved in its construction. Which raises a troubling notion: North Korea's nuclear know-how may be able to elude even the tightest naval noose.
Last edited:
