Looks like N. Korea's on the agenda now too... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Hardknock · 02-10-2005, 12:37 AM

Posted at Msnbc.com

Article

Quote:

N. Korea acknowledges it has nuclear weapons
Pyongyang pulling out of 6-nation talks on atomic issue
The Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea publicly acknowledged Thursday for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and said it won’t return to six-nation talks aimed at getting it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

advertisement
The statement from the reclusive, Stalinist state dramatically raised the stakes in the two-year-old nuclear confrontation and posed a grave challenge to President Bush, who started his second term with a vow to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs through multilateral talks.

“We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s ever more undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

North Korea had reportedly told American negotiators during private talks that it possessed nuclear weapons and might test one of them. North Korea’s U.N. envoy told The Associated Press last year the country had “weaponized” plutonium extracted from its pool of 8,000 nuclear spent fuel rods.

But Thursday’s statement marked North Korea’s first public admission that it has nuclear weapons through its usual means of making official declarations — statements carried on KCNA, its main news outlet to world.

'Only powerful strength can protect justice and truth'
North Korea’s “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances,” the ministry said. “The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth.”

Since 2003, the United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia have held three rounds of talks in Beijing aimed at persuading the North to abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic and diplomatic rewards. But no significant progress has been made.

A fourth round scheduled for September was canceled when North Korea refused to attend, citing what it called a “hostile” U.S. policy.

In the past weeks, hopes had risen that North Korea might return to six-nation talks, especially after Bush started his second term last month by refraining from direct criticism of North Korea.

Rejection of negotiations
On Thursday, North Korea said it had no intention to rejoin such talks any time soon.

“We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks,” the North said Thursday.

North Korea said it came to its decision because “the U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in (North Korea) at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick.”

Still, North Korea said it retained its “principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged.”

Such a comment has widely been interpreted as North Korea’s negotiating tactic to get more economic and diplomatic concession from the United States before joining any crucial talks.

In Bush’s State of the Union address last week, he only mentioned North Korea in a single sentence, saying Washington was “working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions.” That was in stark contrast to Bush’s speech three years ago, when he branded North Korea part of an “axis of evil” with Iran and Iraq.

The softened rhetoric had raised hopes for a positive response from North Korea, with analysts saying that the North would wait to hear Bush’s speech before deciding to rejoin nuclear talks.

The nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002 when U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secrete uranium-enrichment program in violation of international treaties, and it and its allies cut off free fuel oil shipments for the impoverished country.

North Korea retaliated by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in early 2003 and restarting its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program. Its plutonium facilities had been frozen in return for oil shipments and other benefits under a 1994 deal with Washington.

The North had also claimed that it completed reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods previously unloaded from its 5-megawatt reactor and kept under U.N. seals under the 1994 deal. The reprocessing could yield enough plutonium for several nuclear bombs.

The North has also reloaded the 5-megawatt reactor, which can generate more spent fuel laden with plutonium.

We now can see where cowboy diplomacy has gotten us. Now rouge states that fall under the "axis of evil" have the balls to call Dubya's bluff. This is pissimg me off that Bush and his cronies are painting us into a very small corner. But at least we have our allies to help us out. Oh, wait......

Your move George.

Somebody PLEASE tell me again how exactly Iraq was the greater threat.....

MontanaXVI · 02-10-2005, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

Somebody PLEASE tell me again how exactly Iraq was the greater threat.....

Sorry, cannot tell ya the answer to that one. Seems to me old G-Dub was just evening the score up for his dear old dad. Not to say that Iraq was not a threat, just that he had a bone to pick with old Salami Insane.

ObieX · 02-10-2005, 04:19 AM

Iraq wasn't the bigger threat, it was just the easiest to do, so we went there first. If you thought Iraq was a quagmire just imagine how bad Iran would be if we hadn't taken out Iraq first. Saddam would definitely have started some shit.

We'll never go into North Korea. If we do then i dunno what to say... It would just be moronic.

IMO North Korea is justified in it's actions. It thinks having nukes will give it recognition as something other than something to stomp on. They've gotten tired of getting kicked and decided it's time to bite some ankle.

stevo · 02-10-2005, 05:34 AM

So its bush's fault that north korea has nukes, huh? with his "cowboy" diplomacy, right? Because clinton did such a good job keeping NK from advancing its nuclear agenda.

I think the main reason NK wants nukes is for nothing less than to blackmail the rest of the world into giving them what they want. They've been doing it all along. "OK, we stop making nuclear bomb if you give us free fuel" So clinton takes them on their word, cuts a deal wwith them, and they continue to advance their program behind everyone's back.

Now that they have the bomb, the next step is a demonstration that it works, and then south korea will be, for all intents and purposes, held hostage by the north. "If you don't give us free fuel then that is an act of war and we must defend our country"

remember the north claims, “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances.”

02-10-2005, 06:51 AM

I've been saying since just after 9/11 that we were going about this shit all wrong. Stoaked to live within 20 miles of the US' biggest manufaturer of warheads. Fucking hell.

OFKU0 · 02-10-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

remember the north claims, “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances.”

Well, Pakistan, India, Iran and even Israel have stated similar sentiments in the past. Seems like everyone wants to play in the same sandbox.

stevo · 02-10-2005, 08:15 AM

Pakistan, Inda, and Israel don't have nuclear ambitions to hold the world hostage. Which is what NK's goal is. They can't sustain an economy with mal-nourished, hungry citizens used as slave labor. It's a country where the people are still living in the dark ages. Kim Jong Il is the most brutal dictator since Stalin, yes, worse than saddam.

There will be no invasion on NK because as soon as they sense one, they'll nuke seoul. If any military action is taken against NK, the only military action will be to pre-emptively strike....with a nuke or 2.

I'm not an advocate, but its the only viable military option.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 09:09 AM

I know for a fact Israel never signed the proliferation treaty, don't know about India or Pakistan, but I also know that North Korea has, they should be held to it.

guy44 · 02-10-2005, 10:57 AM

Bush is not at fault for allowing NK to get nukes, necessarily. But he is at fault for ignoring the problem so that he could get his jollies killing Iraqis.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 11:07 AM

Bush is not at fault at all in this instance.

What you have is a group of nutjobs (North Korea) breaking international law & treaty (again) in not only having pursued, but now admittedly possessing Nuclear weapons. They don't like the facts that we want multi-lateral talks with regional powers, people who it affects, because they want head-to-head talks because they feel it vindicates and justifies the type of country they are running. China is approaching it half assed because they know the breakdown, they have long been North Korea's biggest enabler A) because they are also communist and they think this legitimitzes them and B) they like the fact that a nutjob is at the helm in N. Korea because a divided Korea and unstable famine suffering military dictatorship doesn't challenge China's regional power.

The question is how to go at it from here for the sake of our allies Japan and South Korea.

irateplatypus · 02-10-2005, 01:30 PM

i literally laughed out loud when i saw someone blame this on Bush. you guys crack me up.

Willravel · 02-10-2005, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Pakistan, Inda, and Israel don't have nuclear ambitions to hold the world hostage.

Quote:

“We ... have manufactured [nukes] for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the (North),” the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

We don't know for sure about said intentions yet. While they break a treaty and could be a danger, an assumption of using them offensively is only conjecture at this point. They could be telling the truth for all we know. They should be heald responsible for their actions and a multi-lateral negotiation should take place to disarm them or to create a new treaty which limits and controls their nuclear power. The military option should be an absolute last resort, if a resort at all.

02-10-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i literally laughed out loud when i saw someone blame this on Bush. you guys crack me up.

i wouldnt go so far as to say that it is bush's fault, he's too stupid to dream something like that up. BUT, he did set his priorities wrong by heading after Iraq first.

stevo · 02-10-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

We don't know for sure about said intentions yet. While they break a treaty and could be a danger, an assumption of using them offensively is only conjecture at this point. They could be telling the truth for all we know. They should be heald responsible for their actions and a multi-lateral negotiation should take place to disarm them or to create a new treaty which limits and controls their nuclear power. The military option should be an absolute last resort, if a resort at all.

Do you not remember Clinton's dealings with NK? The whole reason they began a nuclear program was so that they could promise to stop the program when they were given free oil.

They were, in fact, given free oil. but they never stopped their program.

Now they have the bomb. So why has their motive changed? It hasn't it is still to blackmail the rest of the world into giving the famine stiriken (of their own fault, mind you) country the food and oil it so desperately needs.

I can't believe such a self-proclaimed open-minded person such as yourself would take what North Korea says at face value.

charlesesl · 02-10-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Bush is not at fault at all in this instance.
What you have is a group of nutjobs (North Korea) breaking international

Err. Invasion of Iraq?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Bush is not at fault at all in this instance.
China is approaching it half assed because they know the breakdown, they have long been North Korea's biggest enabler A) because they are also communist and they think this legitimitzes them and B) they like the fact that a nutjob is at the helm in N. Korea because a divided Korea and unstable famine suffering military dictatorship doesn't challenge China's regional power.

I guess it is China's fault they are not solving your problem.

Willravel · 02-10-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Do you not remember Clinton's dealings with NK? The whole reason they began a nuclear program was so that they could promise to stop the program when they were given free oil.

They were, in fact, given free oil. but they never stopped their program.

Now they have the bomb. So why has their motive changed? It hasn't it is still to blackmail the rest of the world into giving the famine stiriken (of their own fault, mind you) country the food and oil it so desperately needs.

I can't believe such a self-proclaimed open-minded person such as yourself would take what North Korea says at face value.

I'm not taking what they say at face value by any means, but I'm not dismissing it completly either. I'm going to consider it with the rest of the possibilities (the other possibilities including the hostage scenereo). I'm not saying it's probable, but possible that they do have them to simply protect themselves from asgressors.

Charlatan · 02-10-2005, 02:28 PM

This issue with Bush is that he pushed the NK agenda further when he made the Axis of Evil speech and made them sit up and take notice after the US invaded Iraqi...

Bush's responsibility in the matter is a matter of needless posturing which led to escalation when he should have been engaging in some diplomacy.

Bodyhammer86 · 02-10-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Err. Invasion of Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq wasn't breaking international law, if that's what you were trying to say. Sorry to ruin your fun.

jorgelito · 02-10-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote: Willravel - "I'm not saying it's probable, but possible that they do have them to simply protect themselves from asgressors."

I disagree. North Korea is a "hermit Kingdom". Really, who would be an aggressor to them? China? nope. Japan? Nope. South Korea? Nope, that's a "family" squabble, none of our business. So then, defense against whom?

I believe they're just trying to blackmail the world for concessions. It's time we draw a line in the sand here.

I'm only concerned that there isn't anything we can do about it. For the first time in my life, I have doubts about our own military capability.

Oddly, I agree with the Bush naysayers (from previous thread) about "why didn't we invade Iran, N. Korea, why Iraq etc..." but for entirely different reasons.

Iran, N. Korea definitely are real threats to our security (and the world too). It kind of sucks to be called out and unable to do anything about it. Apparently, we lack the man power etc. Both Iran and N. Korea need to be "relieved" of their nuclear capability.

Lebell · 02-10-2005, 02:59 PM

Blaiming Bush for North Korea's nuclear program ignores 50 years of history on the Korean pennisula and all the events of the Clinton years.

One does not just throw together a nuclear bomb...it takes decades of work, from building the enrichment facilities, to acquiring the knowhow, to obtaining the fissionable material.

In the case of North Korea, they are controlled by a madman...not figuratively, or allegorically mad, but a certifiably insane individual.

This same individual maintains control through intense propaganda in which the United States is the supreme boogie man.

And finally, this same individual has geared his entire country towards their own version of a "holy war" in which they take control of South Korea.

So while I can at least see where some of you get your Bush hatred in other posts, this one is so completely overboard that it is at the bottom of the sea.

Hardknock · 02-10-2005, 03:09 PM

And you don't see anything wrong with ignoring the problem for the last 4 years so Dubya can settle the score for daddykins?

I dont care what happened during the Clinton years. We're in the HERE AND NOW. Not 8 years ago, not 50 years ago. It STILL amazes me that republicans are still blaming him for shit. The fact is that Bush want's to "spread freedom around the world" yet he constantly goes again his own statements when he goes after bullshit countries like Iraq.

And no one has still answered my question from a previous thread that asked, why haven't we gone after the other dictators that were an obvious threat first?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-10-2005, 03:27 PM

How did Bush ignore the problem for four years? By pushing for multi-lateral talks? By involving NK's pimp (China) and getting their regional neighbors in the picture? Invasion was never an option for North Korea, mostly because even without WMD's it would be hell. You'd get China involved (like in the first Korean war), not to mention you would be invading a country with wicked terrain and the worlds 3rd largest standing army that is the sole prize of the country, Kim Jong Il's military first policy literally pushed his people to canabalism.

And Hardknock this is Clinton's fault you can try and deflect the blame on Bush, but you are just plain wrong. Clinton buckled like a punk and caved into blackmail by Kim Jong Il, he didn't hold him to his word, and now they have nuclear weapons (surprise, surprise). I know you would like to look at this only in terms of short term (Bush haters tend to do that), but that is just ignorant and neglects the reality, the history, and all of the policy that is and was at play.

Willravel · 02-10-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I disagree. North Korea is a "hermit Kingdom". Really, who would be an aggressor to them? China? nope. Japan? Nope. South Korea? Nope, that's a "family" squabble, none of our business. So then, defense against whom?

You probably know what I'm going to say here. I'll just come out and say it. It is possible that the United States will decide again to do a preemptive strike to try and diram them and remove their hostile government. It's happaned before. Whether it's likely in reality or not is debatable, but I'm sure they see it as a huge risk. While the Second Gulf war is far from a success, we were very good at removing the governmental officials in the Ba'ath Party from power, or their lives, when we invaded Iraq. If we did invade NK the way we did in Iraq, Kim Jong and most of his budddies will either be dead or imprisoned as a result. That is the worst possible scenereo for them. In order to deter us, they decided to go the Cold War route and use perliforation. It's possible. Not probable, but possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I believe they're just trying to blackmail the world for concessions. It's time we draw a line in the sand here.

I'm only concerned that there isn't anything we can do about it. For the first time in my life, I have doubts about our own military capability.

You believe, but there seriosuly is no way to be 100% sure. That was kinda my point. It's all speculation until something happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Oddly, I agree with the Bush naysayers (from previous thread) about "why didn't we invade Iran, N. Korea, why Iraq etc..." but for entirely different reasons.

Iran, N. Korea definitely are real threats to our security (and the world too). It kind of sucks to be called out and unable to do anything about it. Apparently, we lack the man power etc. Both Iran and N. Korea need to be "relieved" of their nuclear capability.

Everyone should be relieved of nuclear capability , imho. The world would be a lot safer without them. Too bad it's too late for that.

Lebell · 02-10-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

And you don't see anything wrong with ignoring the problem for the last 4 years so Dubya can settle the score for daddykins?

I dont care what happened during the Clinton years. We're in the HERE AND NOW. Not 8 years ago, not 50 years ago. It STILL amazes me that republicans are still blaming him for shit. The fact is that Bush want's to "spread freedom around the world" yet he constantly goes again his own statements when he goes after bullshit countries like Iraq.

And no one has still answered my question from a previous thread that asked, why haven't we gone after the other dictators that were an obvious threat first?

I generally don't reply to threads that delve into name calling, but I'll make an exception.

No, I don't see that we 'ignored' the NK problem. We were dealing with ANOTHER problem, which you may or may not agree needed dealing with. The fact is that foreign policy spans the globe and doesn't stop with one hotspot such as Korea.

As to Clinton, clearly NK was lying to the Clinton administration. Is that "blame" or simply stating the facts? (BTW, you assume I am a Republican when I am not.) But in any event, Clinton's way of dealing with the situation clearly didn't work, yet I am seeing several posts bemoaning the fact that Bush isn't 'engaging' the North Koreans, presumably like Clinton did.

It is obvious that part of Bush's strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq was to make it clear that the US would respond to an attack such as 9/11 or if a regime refused to bow to international pressure regarding such things as WMD's (and please, don't start on the "he didn't have them" mantra...he had them in the past and wanted them again, which is fact).

As to "why we haven't gone after other dictators", my own belief is that people like you (both here and abroad) make it politically unfeasible.

Consider Iraq.

Here we have a man that was literally a burgeoning Hitler, complete with gassing his own civilians and invading his neighbors, yet it took arguing WMDs and defied sanctions to sell a war...not the atrocities that he had already committed, including the first Gulf War (Bush Sr. is on record as saying the major reason that we didn't go in the first time is because we wouldn't have the support. How sick is that?)

But even with that, it is pointed out (with glee), that millions upon millions of people across the world don't support this war.

I can only imagine the firestorm of world wide protest if we really did go into NK without them breaking the armastice first (oh yeah, they've never signed a peace treaty...did you know that?)

MoonDog · 02-10-2005, 03:34 PM

I have to agree with Obie on this one. We'll never go into North Korea unless they make the first move. If we did, I think China would storm Taiwan in a heartbeat. THEN where would we be?

Plus, we don't have the resources to tackle the North Koreans...at least right now we don't.

Zeld2.0 · 02-10-2005, 04:54 PM

China has little reason to invade Taiwan. They're opening up direct flights for the first time. It won't happen.

We don't have resources to face N.Korea because we have forces spread elsewhere.

The bigger problem with N.Korea is how close they are to major world-player nations. China to their north and west is the second world power. You have Japan across the ocean there. South they have South Korea. Oh, and lets not forget Russia is awfully close.

And with cities on the west coast of the U.S. in range of nukes? Have a nice day.

jorgelito · 02-10-2005, 04:57 PM

Willravel,
Yes, yes of course...*strokes goatee thoughtfully* It's all speculation. We're all armchair strategists here.

It is possible, even conceivable that N. Korea sees nukes as a defensive posture in a pre-emptive "chess" move antipating US hostility. Kim is probably a paranoiac (sp) which is also what makes him so dangerous.

In critical analysis, it is sometimes useful to ask the question, "qui bono?" or who benefits? Why would Kim make that move, what is he trying to gain? It is difficult especially because of the paucity of intelligence on the N. Koreans. I doubt even the Chinese know what to do.

So, I speculate that, based on past record, he is probably trying to flex a little muscle to squeeze concessions (oil, grain etc) from the rest of us. Additionally, he may be trying to distract his own population from their domestic trouble by focusing attention abroad - "Hey look at me! Kim Jong-Il - I'm looking out for all my Korean children form the evil West" (something like that). Diverting domestic problems away to international ones wrapped in a cloak of nationalism or patriotism or homeland security (hmmm....sounds familiar) is a common tactic politicians everywhere use.

Another possibility is he may be trying to consolidate his power. In autocratic regimes, there is often power struggle. Kim is not the "man" his father was. The poliburo, military elites may not like him or may be trying to circumvent him. In any case, he may be rattling the saber to prove himself and maintain his power.

There is so little we know about that regime. Who are the other players? The ones loyal to his father, the hawks, the reformers? Many variables.

In regards to a nuke-free world: Well, it has been reasoned that bipolarity (dual superpowers), backed by MAD (controlled nukes) kept the Cold War from getting "hot" and kept the peace for 40 years or so. I think status quo (meaning declared powers) should retain, slowly reduce and prevent everyone else from procuring nukes. Non-declared and non-signees (India, Pakistan, Israel, S. Africa, Brazil) well, we must work harder there in our diplomatic process.

One of the dangers in N. Korea or Iran possessing nukes isn't necessarily that they will use it, but rather, nukes will be sold to someone else. Other rogue states, terror organizations or to the guy we we're supposed to catch but forgot about when going to Iraq (Osama!). Nukes in the hands of terrorists is probably way worse than in the hands of the states Iran and N. Korea.

If you want to blame Bush, then you have to look at his foreign policy per se. I suppose you could argue that his Iraq mission was shortsighted, sloppy, not thought out etc. My guess is his advisors had a lot to say about it too etc...it's not just him.

Remember, hindsight is always easy but of the three (evil axis), and if we could only contain one, then it's still obvious we made a bad choice.

China is the x-factor here. They don't want a nuclear N. Korea either and their patience with Kim is wearing thin. Here's a wild one: China goes to the Security Council to authorize ridding N Korea of nukes. Kim either complies or:
China leads a coalition of China, S. Korea, Russia etc and either removes the nukes or removes Kim. N. Korea becomes a UN Mandate governed by China, S. Korea under UN Auspices. Funded by the Six-Nations with heavy emohasis on S. Kore and Japan footing most of the bill.

jorgelito · 02-10-2005, 05:03 PM

The question that bothers me most is:

Why aren't people in the US (left, right, center) and people in other countries concerned with Iran, N. Korea having nukes or terrorist orgs obtaining them? They only seem to care about US action (which ironically would also serve their interest. In other words, we do all the dirty work then get flak for it. It's....weird.

stevo · 02-11-2005, 06:41 AM

because people against the war believe that there is not terrorist threat. It has been exaggerated and made up (in some instances) to further the "neo-cons'" fascist agenda.

anyway

The latest news on NK is that they are DEMANDING two-way talks between the US and themselves. They won't deal with china, russia, japan, or south korea. So that's a real good position to take when you only want nukes as a deterrant, right will? And the US engaging in those talks only validates the NK's obtainment of nuclear weapons.

Willravel · 02-11-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

because people against the war believe that there is not terrorist threat. It has been exaggerated and made up (in some instances) to further the "neo-cons'" fascist agenda.

Um. It has been exaggerated. Watch your local news for three nights. Odds are that at least one of those nights you'll get to see a story about what terrorists can potentially do in your area to kill you. I just watched a report about the water supply in San Francisco the other day. They didn't cite one source that would link the plan to terrorists. It was just a news report on how to poison the drinking water. It was obviously about ratings and pushing an agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

The latest news on NK is that they are DEMANDING two-way talks between the US and themselves. They won't deal with china, russia, japan, or south korea. So that's a real good position to take when you only want nukes as a deterrant, right will?

I specificlly said "It's possible. Not probable, but possible." that they have them as a deterrant. I didn't say that my opinion was that they were using them as a deterrant, I simply wasn't going to completly discount the possibility. Jeez. My opinion is that they have been scared shitless for a while, and they are still very desperate. Their econemy is...very bad. Their military is very bad. Their leader might have a napolean complex. It's a very unstable situation, and the fact that they probably have nuclear weapons makes this very delacite. It is likely that KJI is going to try and blackmail us.

ObieX · 02-11-2005, 08:30 AM

If i recall correctly it wasn't that long ago that N.Korea test fired a missile over the Island of Japan. So i figure if they were to strike anyone that's who it would be. While it may be theoretically possible for them to possibly hit Alaska, the odds of that actually happening are extremely slim, and even if thy did the odds that they would actually kill anyone are still kinda slim with the way Alaska is populated.

Anyway, N. Korea is pretty crappy economically. I think they just want to be allowed back into the world, atleast trading wise. They're so hostile because they feel backed into a corner. To them the Korean war probably still seems like it was 10 minutes ago, too. I think if the US were to break off all relations with them all together and let them handle their own shnit they would be less pissed off and more likely to become a productive state. As it is we keep poking and poking at them, eventually they'll bite back, we all know they would like to.

Then again this mentality seems to be rampant throughout the world at this time. America is always pushing people's buttons and expecting that they'll just take it because we're "uber". Its the same deal with the middle east, they just want us to stay the hell out of their business and let them run their own lives/countries. Yet, we can't seem to help poking our noses in and punching some countries in the face just for the sake of doing it.

02-10-2005, 04:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Iraq wasn't the bigger threat, it was just the easiest to do, so we went there first. If you thought Iraq was a quagmire just imagine how bad Iran would be if we hadn't taken out Iraq first. Saddam would definitely have started some shit. We'll never go into North Korea. If we do then i dunno what to say... It would just be moronic. IMO North Korea is justified in it's actions. It thinks having nukes will give it recognition as something other than something to stomp on. They've gotten tired of getting kicked and decided it's time to bite some ankle. __________________ We Must Dissent.

02-10-2005, 09:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I know for a fact Israel never signed the proliferation treaty, don't know about India or Pakistan, but I also know that North Korea has, they should be held to it. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-10-2005, 10:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Bush is not at fault for allowing NK to get nukes, necessarily. But he is at fault for ignoring the problem so that he could get his jollies killing Iraqis. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-10-2005, 11:07 AM	#10 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Bush is not at fault at all in this instance. What you have is a group of nutjobs (North Korea) breaking international law & treaty (again) in not only having pursued, but now admittedly possessing Nuclear weapons. They don't like the facts that we want multi-lateral talks with regional powers, people who it affects, because they want head-to-head talks because they feel it vindicates and justifies the type of country they are running. China is approaching it half assed because they know the breakdown, they have long been North Korea's biggest enabler A) because they are also communist and they think this legitimitzes them and B) they like the fact that a nutjob is at the helm in N. Korea because a divided Korea and unstable famine suffering military dictatorship doesn't challenge China's regional power. The question is how to go at it from here for the sake of our allies Japan and South Korea. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-10-2005, 01:30 PM	#11 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i literally laughed out loud when i saw someone blame this on Bush. you guys crack me up. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

02-10-2005, 05:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So its bush's fault that north korea has nukes, huh? with his "cowboy" diplomacy, right? Because clinton did such a good job keeping NK from advancing its nuclear agenda. I think the main reason NK wants nukes is for nothing less than to blackmail the rest of the world into giving them what they want. They've been doing it all along. "OK, we stop making nuclear bomb if you give us free fuel" So clinton takes them on their word, cuts a deal wwith them, and they continue to advance their program behind everyone's back. Now that they have the bomb, the next step is a demonstration that it works, and then south korea will be, for all intents and purposes, held hostage by the north. "If you don't give us free fuel then that is an act of war and we must defend our country" remember the north claims, “nuclear weapons will remain (a) nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances.”

02-10-2005, 06:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
thinktank Guest	I've been saying since just after 9/11 that we were going about this shit all wrong. Stoaked to live within 20 miles of the US' biggest manufaturer of warheads. Fucking hell.

02-10-2005, 08:15 AM	#7 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Pakistan, Inda, and Israel don't have nuclear ambitions to hold the world hostage. Which is what NK's goal is. They can't sustain an economy with mal-nourished, hungry citizens used as slave labor. It's a country where the people are still living in the dark ages. Kim Jong Il is the most brutal dictator since Stalin, yes, worse than saddam. There will be no invasion on NK because as soon as they sense one, they'll nuke seoul. If any military action is taken against NK, the only military action will be to pre-emptively strike....with a nuke or 2. I'm not an advocate, but its the only viable military option.

02-10-2005, 02:28 PM	#17 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	This issue with Bush is that he pushed the NK agenda further when he made the Axis of Evil speech and made them sit up and take notice after the US invaded Iraqi... Bush's responsibility in the matter is a matter of needless posturing which led to escalation when he should have been engaging in some diplomacy. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-10-2005, 02:58 PM	#19 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Quote: Willravel - "I'm not saying it's probable, but possible that they do have them to simply protect themselves from asgressors." I disagree. North Korea is a "hermit Kingdom". Really, who would be an aggressor to them? China? nope. Japan? Nope. South Korea? Nope, that's a "family" squabble, none of our business. So then, defense against whom? I believe they're just trying to blackmail the world for concessions. It's time we draw a line in the sand here. I'm only concerned that there isn't anything we can do about it. For the first time in my life, I have doubts about our own military capability. Oddly, I agree with the Bush naysayers (from previous thread) about "why didn't we invade Iran, N. Korea, why Iraq etc..." but for entirely different reasons. Iran, N. Korea definitely are real threats to our security (and the world too). It kind of sucks to be called out and unable to do anything about it. Apparently, we lack the man power etc. Both Iran and N. Korea need to be "relieved" of their nuclear capability. Last edited by jorgelito; 02-10-2005 at 02:59 PM.. Reason: Grammar

02-10-2005, 02:59 PM	#20 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Blaiming Bush for North Korea's nuclear program ignores 50 years of history on the Korean pennisula and all the events of the Clinton years. One does not just throw together a nuclear bomb...it takes decades of work, from building the enrichment facilities, to acquiring the knowhow, to obtaining the fissionable material. In the case of North Korea, they are controlled by a madman...not figuratively, or allegorically mad, but a certifiably insane individual. This same individual maintains control through intense propaganda in which the United States is the supreme boogie man. And finally, this same individual has geared his entire country towards their own version of a "holy war" in which they take control of South Korea. So while I can at least see where some of you get your Bush hatred in other posts, this one is so completely overboard that it is at the bottom of the sea. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-10-2005, 03:09 PM	#21 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	And you don't see anything wrong with ignoring the problem for the last 4 years so Dubya can settle the score for daddykins? I dont care what happened during the Clinton years. We're in the HERE AND NOW. Not 8 years ago, not 50 years ago. It STILL amazes me that republicans are still blaming him for shit. The fact is that Bush want's to "spread freedom around the world" yet he constantly goes again his own statements when he goes after bullshit countries like Iraq. And no one has still answered my question from a previous thread that asked, why haven't we gone after the other dictators that were an obvious threat first?

02-10-2005, 03:27 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How did Bush ignore the problem for four years? By pushing for multi-lateral talks? By involving NK's pimp (China) and getting their regional neighbors in the picture? Invasion was never an option for North Korea, mostly because even without WMD's it would be hell. You'd get China involved (like in the first Korean war), not to mention you would be invading a country with wicked terrain and the worlds 3rd largest standing army that is the sole prize of the country, Kim Jong Il's military first policy literally pushed his people to canabalism. And Hardknock this is Clinton's fault you can try and deflect the blame on Bush, but you are just plain wrong. Clinton buckled like a punk and caved into blackmail by Kim Jong Il, he didn't hold him to his word, and now they have nuclear weapons (surprise, surprise). I know you would like to look at this only in terms of short term (Bush haters tend to do that), but that is just ignorant and neglects the reality, the history, and all of the policy that is and was at play. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-10-2005, 03:34 PM	#25 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	I have to agree with Obie on this one. We'll never go into North Korea unless they make the first move. If we did, I think China would storm Taiwan in a heartbeat. THEN where would we be? Plus, we don't have the resources to tackle the North Koreans...at least right now we don't.

02-10-2005, 04:54 PM	#26 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	China has little reason to invade Taiwan. They're opening up direct flights for the first time. It won't happen. We don't have resources to face N.Korea because we have forces spread elsewhere. The bigger problem with N.Korea is how close they are to major world-player nations. China to their north and west is the second world power. You have Japan across the ocean there. South they have South Korea. Oh, and lets not forget Russia is awfully close. And with cities on the west coast of the U.S. in range of nukes? Have a nice day.

02-10-2005, 04:57 PM	#27 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Willravel, Yes, yes of course...strokes goatee thoughtfully It's all speculation. We're all armchair strategists here. It is possible, even conceivable that N. Korea sees nukes as a defensive posture in a pre-emptive "chess" move antipating US hostility. Kim is probably a paranoiac (sp) which is also what makes him so dangerous. In critical analysis, it is sometimes useful to ask the question, "qui bono?" or who benefits? Why would Kim make that move, what is he trying to gain? It is difficult especially because of the paucity of intelligence on the N. Koreans. I doubt even the Chinese know what to do. So, I speculate that, based on past record, he is probably trying to flex a little muscle to squeeze concessions (oil, grain etc) from the rest of us. Additionally, he may be trying to distract his own population from their domestic trouble by focusing attention abroad - "Hey look at me! Kim Jong-Il - I'm looking out for all my Korean children form the evil West" (something like that). Diverting domestic problems away to international ones wrapped in a cloak of nationalism or patriotism or homeland security (hmmm....sounds familiar) is a common tactic politicians everywhere use. Another possibility is he may be trying to consolidate his power. In autocratic regimes, there is often power struggle. Kim is not the "man" his father was. The poliburo, military elites may not like him or may be trying to circumvent him. In any case, he may be rattling the saber to prove himself and maintain his power. There is so little we know about that regime. Who are the other players? The ones loyal to his father, the hawks, the reformers? Many variables. In regards to a nuke-free world: Well, it has been reasoned that bipolarity (dual superpowers), backed by MAD (controlled nukes) kept the Cold War from getting "hot" and kept the peace for 40 years or so. I think status quo (meaning declared powers) should retain, slowly reduce and prevent everyone else from procuring nukes. Non-declared and non-signees (India, Pakistan, Israel, S. Africa, Brazil) well, we must work harder there in our diplomatic process. One of the dangers in N. Korea or Iran possessing nukes isn't necessarily that they will use it, but rather, nukes will be sold to someone else. Other rogue states, terror organizations or to the guy we we're supposed to catch but forgot about when going to Iraq (Osama!). Nukes in the hands of terrorists is probably way worse than in the hands of the states Iran and N. Korea. If you want to blame Bush, then you have to look at his foreign policy per se. I suppose you could argue that his Iraq mission was shortsighted, sloppy, not thought out etc. My guess is his advisors had a lot to say about it too etc...it's not just him. Remember, hindsight is always easy but of the three (evil axis), and if we could only contain one, then it's still obvious we made a bad choice. China is the x-factor here. They don't want a nuclear N. Korea either and their patience with Kim is wearing thin. Here's a wild one: China goes to the Security Council to authorize ridding N Korea of nukes. Kim either complies or: China leads a coalition of China, S. Korea, Russia etc and either removes the nukes or removes Kim. N. Korea becomes a UN Mandate governed by China, S. Korea under UN Auspices. Funded by the Six-Nations with heavy emohasis on S. Kore and Japan footing most of the bill.

02-10-2005, 05:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	The question that bothers me most is: Why aren't people in the US (left, right, center) and people in other countries concerned with Iran, N. Korea having nukes or terrorist orgs obtaining them? They only seem to care about US action (which ironically would also serve their interest. In other words, we do all the dirty work then get flak for it. It's....weird.

02-11-2005, 06:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	because people against the war believe that there is not terrorist threat. It has been exaggerated and made up (in some instances) to further the "neo-cons'" fascist agenda. anyway The latest news on NK is that they are DEMANDING two-way talks between the US and themselves. They won't deal with china, russia, japan, or south korea. So that's a real good position to take when you only want nukes as a deterrant, right will? And the US engaging in those talks only validates the NK's obtainment of nuclear weapons.

02-11-2005, 08:30 AM	#31 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	If i recall correctly it wasn't that long ago that N.Korea test fired a missile over the Island of Japan. So i figure if they were to strike anyone that's who it would be. While it may be theoretically possible for them to possibly hit Alaska, the odds of that actually happening are extremely slim, and even if thy did the odds that they would actually kill anyone are still kinda slim with the way Alaska is populated. Anyway, N. Korea is pretty crappy economically. I think they just want to be allowed back into the world, atleast trading wise. They're so hostile because they feel backed into a corner. To them the Korean war probably still seems like it was 10 minutes ago, too. I think if the US were to break off all relations with them all together and let them handle their own shnit they would be less pissed off and more likely to become a productive state. As it is we keep poking and poking at them, eventually they'll bite back, we all know they would like to. Then again this mentality seems to be rampant throughout the world at this time. America is always pushing people's buttons and expecting that they'll just take it because we're "uber". Its the same deal with the middle east, they just want us to stay the hell out of their business and let them run their own lives/countries. Yet, we can't seem to help poking our noses in and punching some countries in the face just for the sake of doing it. __________________ We Must Dissent.