Quote:
Originally posted by D-man
see someone trying to make sense without facts. you make good points and logic would say your right but the facts are:
1) If they have nukes that can reach us we will attack them first
2) Mattyd is already over there in Okinawa - they are deploying 100,000 troops all over the Asian theater as we speak
3) we didn't use all of our "smart bombs" in Iraq - we did use a good portion of our million dollar cruse missiles - most of the bigger so called "smart bombs" are surplus WWII dumb bomb with guidance systems added and we have ass loads of them
4) This guy Kim is a freak - he wears American cloths and watches our movies and he's got untested nukes. the point is he needs to be taken out!
5) If Bush wants to take them out it won't be a hard sell - some people in Bushes cabinet thought Korea was a bigger threat then Iraq and think we should have dealt with that first -
|
I see the economical and political issues as being a huge factor.
1. 2004 is an election year. I don't see him risking re-election in another war. Though the US military is vastly superior to NK's, there is a high probability this would be very costly for SK in the opening days of the war. That could very well turn public opinion against Bush and risk him re-election.
Another war before the election is unlikely. Bush will start losing votes because people are most concerned about the economy.
The deficit is already projected to be $475 billion in 2004 and $304 billion in 2005. Needless to say, add a war into either of those figures and you will see a white house in trouble.
I didn't say "use all of our smart bombs". I said we used a lot. I know the difference between a Tomahawk and a JDAM. Thanks.
Again, I say such a war is unlikely (opposite of likely, less than 50%), not that it's not not going to happen.