Page 1 of 1
Which is more dangerous: Al-Qaeda,North Korea or Iraq?
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:07 pm
by cycloneye
I say Al-Qaeda because they operate under the shadows all the time and we know what happened on 9/11 when nobody said something was going to happen that clear morning even the CIA didn't said anything that might be suspisious at that time.
A close second is North Korea because of what they have now and those are 2 nuclear bombs and the plutonimun to fabricate 5-6 in a month.

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:23 pm
by streetsoldier
Well, if Slick Willie hadn't gutted our foreign intelligence (and we had to rely on Interpol, MI-6 and Surete Francaise for information)...
A little background here; when then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright was called before a Senate select committee to answer questions about Al-Qaida, she came back four days later with...NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS(???), and few of even those.
Yes, Al-Qaida is the major threat overall, but Iraq has the will and ability to supply them with VX, ricin,anthrax, etc., which would serve both sets of madmen admirably.
As to North Korea, Kim Il Jong is no idiot; he WANTS something from us (food, economic preferences, etc.). As to why this pipsqueak "Democratic People's Republic" needs nuclear capability and delivery systems? For the same reason Japan wanted absolute hegemony over the world's raw tin, rubber, etc. over the same area in the 1930's and early 40's...NK wants to be the "Big He-Bull" in the neighborhood (or appear to be so...I think the "prime mover" is China, using NK as a proxy).
And don't think for one minute that Kim would act without a Chinese umbrella..without which North Korea wouldn't be in existence in the first place.
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:34 pm
by Rob-TheStormChaser
lol Bill..thats putting them in their perspectives! All 3 warrant a valid threat but AQ is the biggie for now.
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:12 pm
by streetsoldier
Rob and all,
Think of in this manner; we "take out" Saddam's version of Iraq, and Al-Qaida goes begging for the micro-weapons they so desperately want and need...plus, we stabilize a region that has been in constant upheaval since the fall of the British Raj.
Not a bad month-or-so's work...if that long.
Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2003 11:54 pm
by ColdFront77
I think all three are important to us as well. Al Qaida has been a threat right along and we are hearing about Iraq and North Korea, something has to be done eventually and war is a way. What else could we do?
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 7:48 am
by Rob-TheStormChaser
Lets just hope that a month is all that is needed...much like the time I spent over there. Quick and productive and accurate strikes is what its all about, and our guys are really on the ball.
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2003 3:45 pm
by ColdFront77
The quicker the better. The way it sounds... this may be one of our fastest wars ever. They can only get faster and faster with technology and all.