Friday, June 10, 2005

crusade or oil?


for the umpteenth time already, north korea says that it has nuke weapons. why haven't the US initiate it's pre-emptive shock-and-awe let's kill all the women and children with napalm blasts and cowardly bunker-busting air strikes?? and while we're at that, why don't we wreck havoc in the country as well and make sure innocent civillians will have no good night's sleep for the next 10 years.

the way i see it, iraq says it has no WMD. iran claims it doesn't even have one - yet. and north koreans are - besides boasting it has nukes - undoubtedly living under communist oppression, poverty, humanitarian crisis. oh wait, there's more. pyongyang says multilateral talks are useless, the Korean Central News Agency says Washington is "driving the Korean peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war", and north korea doesn't rule out pre-emptive attack against the US.

okay, so maybe some think that kim jong II is a mentally childish & paranoid (so is bush anyway) with no real weapons. but how that fare against saddam? and why does it seem the US are more interested in attacking Iran while brushing off north korea's nuke?

don't get me wrong now. im not for war. how would killing another living being ever be justifiable? just that if this is a multiple choice question, then iraq or iran shoudn't be the answer.

is it a crusade? or will it make more difference if there's lotsa oil welling under north korea's deep blue sea?


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home