2006-10-09 09:29:55 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So, Britain and America never tested any nuclear weapons. You don't suppose the Koreans answer to all this may be that they are protecting themselves from a "war President."Bush is not in a position to "condem" anyone or thing.
2006-10-09 09:39:35 · update #1
It's not like we haven't considered this.
World leaders are telling Bush to cool down and to not start a war. World leaders are telling Kim Jong il to not test WMD and toget his act together.
The problem with this is that the UN as a whole has been considered inaffective because the UN is about peace. The only way to rid Kim Jong Il, seemingly, is by force.
N. Korea supposably has weapons that are able to hit Los Angeles. VERY POSSIBLE!
if we attack them, something will happen just like WWI. UNLESS the U.S. attacks unilaterally. if we do attack, we most likely will attack unilaterally, that means that we go in alone and we face the responsibilities. If other countries support N. Korea, we are in lots of trouble.
Back to the WWI theory, so many countries are allied that world war is immenate.
::::MUST READ (VERY INTERESTING)::::
Even China and Russia and Japan are securing their borders because they are unsure of what Kim Jong il will do next. (they are supposed to be allies)
So in all, N. Korea is more than likely on their own if anything happens.
2006-10-09 09:57:58 · answer #1 · answered by tenacious_d2008 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One possible reason that North Korea has nuclear weapons could be that it wants to protect itself and become a more powerful country. So north korea has as much right to have nuclear weapons as america or anybody else.
Who is america to tell other countries what they can and can't do?
If another country is telling america what they can and can't do, wouldn't Americans dislike that country?
America is the Boss of the world, but Bosses are never angels, and are always hated by some.
2006-10-09 10:04:03 · answer #2 · answered by Brown Bear 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The term "Dictator" involves some short, ugly, crazy North Korean man with nuclear weapons going against the UN's intentions. The term "President" involves some monkey from Texas who doesn't abuse his rights to nuclear weapons as much as the Dictator does.
2006-10-09 17:35:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only when the North Koreans discover a massive oil field will their country be considered for invasion by Bush.
2006-10-09 09:43:44 · answer #4 · answered by badgerbeetle 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We do not yet KNOW they have a nuclear weapon. They claim to, but we haven't been able to prove anything more than the fact that they have set of an explosion of some sort.
2006-10-09 09:35:45 · answer #5 · answered by Tofu Jesus 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry don't agree with you.
I don't support war very often but I do support a war this time.
Not only is this going to distablize the entire region but it poses a direct threat to our allies.
We should never allow a country that would actually use a WMD to ever have them.
2006-10-09 09:35:16 · answer #6 · answered by Karce 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No way one of their squadrons is like the size of the british army, and with our idiots in charge at the moment dont suggest bush going over to sort it out, otherwise we will be involved, unless bush the idiot wants to do it alone , let him crack on
2006-10-09 09:32:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Iran gets nukes, Israel will nuke Iran. is that this what we desire? no person needs warfare with Iran (different than bush, chaney, fox information, fundis, fascists) yet we could convince the international and Iran to get rid of their nuclear objectives.
2016-12-13 05:08:37 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no,, but Kim Jong il could sell them to terrorists
2006-10-09 09:34:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?
2006-10-09 09:32:08 · answer #10 · answered by dbqdawg 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋