babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » N. Korea admits having nukes...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: N. Korea admits having nukes...
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 24 April 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Click
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 24 April 2003 01:02 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess they won't be attacked then. If they didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction, and were sitting on an underground sea of oil, now that would be dangerous.

[ 24 April 2003: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 24 April 2003 01:59 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Imagine the US decided to use the same rhetoric as N. Korea ? But, I suppose this is the Americans fault again
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So you think it is a positive development when the US engages in the same rhetoric as N. Korea?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 24 April 2003 02:47 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. And they don't.
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 24 April 2003 02:50 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More

Saber rattling seems far too quaint a term to apply to this madness.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 02:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, good. I was worried there for a second.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 24 April 2003 03:08 PM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's almost as if N. Korea is asking for a war. The consequences would be horrible for that region.

[ 24 April 2003: Message edited by: DaddySno ]


From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Brown
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3959

posted 24 April 2003 03:20 PM      Profile for John Brown     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They don't want a war they want to be bought off with aid money like before. They're a poor isolated country that desperately needs the aid money.
The US doesn't want to pay up like last time, so we'll see how far they take it. It's all just a matter of playing chicken

From: earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 03:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is madness but you must also look at what N. Korea wants. It is more than just aid. They want assurances, also, that the US will not attack them. Why is that unreasonable?

From their perspective, Bush has declared them one of teh Axis of Evil and has just invaded and occupied Iraq. There has been ruminations in Washington on who is next, Iran, Syria or N. Korea.

N. Korea believe nuclear weapons and insane talk of using them will present a deterrent.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 April 2003 03:42 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is madness but you must also look at what N. Korea wants. It is more than just aid. They want assurances, also, that the US will not attack them. Why is that unreasonable?

Because they're demanding these assurances without being willing to give any themselves. Are they saying in return for assurances the US won't attack, that they promise not to attack South Korea, Japan, or the United States? No. Are they willing to move any troops away from the DMZ? No. Have they ever shown that they can be trusted to live up to the agreements they make? No.

Personally, I think it's quite unreasonable for anybody to suggest that the United States support the national aspirations of the Kim Jong/Kim Sung cult. North Korea is one of the world's worst regimes. Not our responsiblity to ensure that the regime survives and thrives. The DPRK is China's problem. There wouldn't be a North Korea if China hadn't intervened in the Korean war. Kim Sung was a monster made in Russia, and nurtured by China.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Try to stay on board sheep.

Do you have an example where they did not live up to any agreement?

I believe what they wnat now, is guarantees they will not be attacked and they will give up their nuclear weapons program. A North Korea without nuclear weapons makes the region safer for everyone. Or don't you agree?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 24 April 2003 03:49 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The consequences would be horrible for absolutely everyone. Do you think China will sit idly by while the US invades an unstable nuclear power right on its periphery?

By the way, people are closely scrutinising US response on this whole matter because we expect, no, demand, that they "be the grown-up" as it were and prevent a nuclear catastrophe. We know we are dealing with one lunatic; we hope we aren't dealing with two. And if it seems clear that we are (Bush declares an invasion), then the lunatic that we are able to replace, must be replaced immediately, for the sake of the world.

I doubt that NK is asking for a war. Rather they're trying to avert one. They obviously believe that they can get some results from the white house this way, as it's clear to the whole planet that they are seriously diplomacy-challenged. I might remind you that the US is officially at war with NK and has been for decades. Just like Saddam, Kim has been waiting for that fateful day when (not if) the yanks will come to finish the job.

Well, Saddam got his notice and NK was listed in the "axis of evil", so it's pretty clear what's coming down the pike. Kim is making the only move he can under the circumstances. He's trying to up the ante to the point that the US decides it's not worth the trouble. I strongly suspect he's bluffing, actually, but you don't bet on this sort of thing.

The US, on the other hand, does seem to be working for war, but just put out that they can't approach it at their own pace. If they have no plans to attack NK, then they should have no problem declaring peace between the nations and signing the agreement that Kim has asked for. Pleasant negotiations would follow, and lead to inspections and disarmament.

It's telling to me to notice how unconcerned China seems by all this, as if they don't consider NK a threat at all. Maybe they're in on the whole bluff? Maybe this is all an elaborate plot to undermine the US's already poor international image. In any case, they clearly don't perceive Kim's bluster as war rhetoric, just diplomatic leverage. Let's hope the US is as level-headed.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 April 2003 03:51 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do you mean besides the repeated breaches of the armistice agreement over the past 50 years Wingnut? How about the fact that they never lived up to their agreements under the deal they signed with Clinton in 1994? Yes, yes, yes, I know the US didn't live up to all the terms of the agreement themselves, but that doesnt' change the fact the North Koreans didn't.

Oh yes, a North Korea free of nuclear weapons would make the region safer. I agree. But a region free of the DPRK would be even safer. Don't you agree?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, yes, yes, I know the US didn't live up to all the terms of the agreement themselves, but that doesnt' change the fact the North Koreans didn't.

You are kidding me, right?

Two sides to an agreement but only one is wrong for not living up to their end. Where I come from if you have deal and one side doesn't deliver you no longer have a deal. It is simple.

And what was the Americans end? To build reactors not capable of developing weapons grade plutonium as a source for energy.

The US knew North Korea was hurting for energy and decided to play politics with the lives of everyone in the region. That is what you support sheep?

So, the N. Korean refired the reactor that was to be dismantled when the new reactors came on line.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 April 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not so simple Wingnut, and we've had this conversation before. North Korea never met the conditions imposed that would have kept the progress on the reactors moving. Check the IAEA's website for the full details. The deal was only struck in the early 90's, by the way, because North Korea was resorting to exactly the same kind of blackmail they are today.

So what, we give in again, give them what they want, live up to our side of the bargain with the naive hope that they will too (basically just trust Kim Jong's good word) and then go through all this again in 5 or 6 years when Kim decides he needs another fleet of bulletproof Mercedes?

Your faith in the North Korean leadership is touching Wingy, it really is. Just a bunch of poor farmers, trying to make their way in the world, not bothering anybody, and getting bullied by the big mean old US of A.

You haven't answered my question though, do you think the region would be safer with a thriving DPRK or no DPRK period?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 24 April 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You haven't answered my question though, do you think the region would be safer with a thriving DPRK or no DPRK period?

Simple questions from the simplest of minds. No room for complexity here; no explanation of how in the hell he thinks we get to "no DPRK period" without a bloodbath. Just a black and white demand, are you with us or against us?

Excuse us if we don't answer to trolls. Leave him hanging, Wingy.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 04:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is quite simple sheep.

Clinton's advisors stated they never moved on the reactors because they didn't believe North Korea would last. In other words, they played politics with the lives of Koreans and Japanese and many others as is normal for them.

They used a number of delaying tactics none of which were related to the IAEA. Some were legitimate concerns but none were deal breakers or as important as ensuring the reactor was shut down.

And as the terms of the agreement called for the mothballing of the existing reactor, there is little chance the issue would have been raised again. In fact, the world would have been better positioned to negotiate away N. Koreas missile export program in exchange for a grain program.

What is surprising is your willingness to absolve the US for all blame in what is becoming a very dangerous situation. What does the US have to do to actually cause you to question their duplicity and judgement?

quote:

You haven't answered my question though, do you think the region would be safer with a thriving DPRK or no DPRK period?


I will answer this way: Any region of the world, and the world itself, can only benefit from the disarmament and the end of militaristic nations bent on the threat and use of arms to achieve foreign objectives while diverting domestic attention away from failed internal policies.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 April 2003 04:26 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
North Korea has precisely two nukes whereas the United States has two thousand or more.

Would someone like to explain to me who in North Korea seriously believes that NK will escape nuclear retaliation in spades if they launch a nuke at the US?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 04:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But that is the beauty of the US gamble, Doc. They won't. They wouldn't launch one at S. Korea either. Thet can kill a million or so with conventional artillery. They will launch their nukes at Japan to do the most damage globally and regionally.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 April 2003 04:46 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow, where is it that you guys gain such insight into the minds of the North Korean leadership? From the surface, it looks like you're just applying the same old tired left wing cliched thinking to the situation (poor desperate nation being pushed around by the Americans etc. etc. etc.) but then I see that Dr. Conway has inside information on the North nuclear armament (precisely two devices) and Wingnut has the scoop on exactly how this historically unpredictable and isolated nation might use their two nuclear weapons.

I'm confused though. North Korea has no oil and it's not a good pipeline route. So why would the US be interested in invading them? I can't quite figure that one out.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 04:53 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle thinks I call people names when I disagree with them sheep. I hope she reads your pile of shit post before she reads my measured response.

You haven't dealt with any of the issues because you are incapable of doing so, I assume. I answered your question apparently too well as it led to your launching into a mindless tirade.

I appreciate you have no concept of history and therefore no idea to geo-political realities involved, but the reason the US was interested in Korea in the first place, and the reason China intervened in the first place, was because of Korea's tactical position vis-a-vis China. Same with Vietnam. It is unlikely China would have allowed the US to destroy the North in that conflict either.

Today, it has become a larger, regional problem due to improved technology, in particular missiles, and now nukes.

So, now that you have your history lesson maybe you will return to the meaningless one liners that are more in line with your level of ability.

[ 24 April 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 24 April 2003 04:57 PM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
think beach-head, the camel's nose in the tent, economic free zone around an impoverished disaffected work-force that still rembers prosperity. the same economic signals as Iraq, minus the oil, but next to the world's biggest potential market.
by the way the NK regime just has to use the jet stream if they want to hit North America. air burst, down-wind fall-out.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 24 April 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow, ya sure done showed me good there Wingnut! Hail the dear leader and long may he reign!
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 24 April 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have a strange urge to rent the film Inchon.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 April 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
N.Korea and their agreements.

The agreement not to have nukes wasn't just with the U.S. THat was one agreement.

THey had an agreement with South Korea not to build nukes and they had an agreement with the U.N. Both those other agreements weren't conditional on anything the U.S> did.

THey also agreed to distribute aid to starving people. According to the U.N. and Amnesty international they did not distribute the aid properly. THey used the aid to reward supporters and punished others.

From what I understand North Korea continued their Nuke program before they knew what would happen with the U.S. so it seems they never intended to honour it. Doesn't justify what the U.S. did, just shows you what Kim Jong Il is like.

SO as far as North Korea goes, they have to make some effort to prove they can be trusted.

Aid without distribution will not help starving people there. So aid in itself can not be a solution.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 24 April 2003 08:23 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It seems that they never intended to honour it, but we'll never know, will we? I think that trust has to be earned on both sides.

But none of this matters. NK is not making noise because of broken deals or even the dire energy crisis (though that is a side issue). They are playing this dangerous game because they believe they are going to be invaded. Right or wrong, they have every reason to think this. This is a desperate gamble to give the itchy trigger fingers in the white house pause for thought.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 10:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, that is the point Jacob.

And yes, Markbo, North Korea is a dangerous state. It is why there must be a policy of containment. And containment might mean compromises. But surely avoiding a war of the scale that would involve N. Korea is worth it.

More, to address this issue will require real leadership, statesmanlike skills and wisdom. I don't see that at the moment.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boydfish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3667

posted 24 April 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for Boydfish     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They will launch their nukes at Japan to do the most damage globally and regionally.

Good guess, but completely wrong. The most likely target for a DPRK ballistic missile would be either Vancouver or perhaps a smaller coastal city. The simple fact is that the DIA did a very indepth study into this topic back in the 90's. They figured that a DPRK with ICBMs armed with nukes would use them to hit Montreal or perhaps Toronto rather than a strike directly on US soil. The logic was that if the DPRK wiped out Washington or another major US city, the US would have no climb down position available, but if a Canadian city was vaporized, it would send a message that "We can do that to the US as well", but still leaving the door open for the US NCA to cease hostilities.

As the DPRK's best ballistic missiles cannot reach Toronto or Montreal, the only large city in the Canadian confederation that can be hit is Vancouver.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, okay.
It is all speculation anyway. For all we know they don't even have one but are staking out a negotiation position.

[ 24 April 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 24 April 2003 10:52 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Containment? you have got to be kidding. For someone as fond of history's "cycle" as you are Wingnut i would suppose you would know that a "policy of containment" has never ever worked.

How do you propose we contain N. Korea anyhow? UN Peacekeepers?


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 April 2003 10:54 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
North Korea has been contained for the past 50 years.

Containment is the only viable option. Or do you prefer a war against a nation will to commit suicide rather than lose?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 April 2003 11:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wow, where is it that you guys gain such insight into the minds of the North Korean leadership? From the surface, it looks like you're just applying the same old tired left wing cliched thinking to the situation (poor desperate nation being pushed around by the Americans etc. etc. etc.) but then I see that Dr. Conway has inside information on the North nuclear armament (precisely two devices) and Wingnut has the scoop on exactly how this historically unpredictable and isolated nation might use their two nuclear weapons.

I don't understand where this is coming from, really. It seems to me that what's happening on this thread is speculation. I don't think anyone here is claiming to have any inside information.

Not being very "up" on North Korea, I'm learning a lot, but even I can tell when people are speculating on what might happen rather than what is definitely going to happen. I don't really understand what you're criticizing, sheep.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 24 April 2003 11:25 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wingnut....containment clearly has not worked. if it had then the Regime would have fallen and the Nuclear weapons would not be in the DPRK's leadership's hands. Containment's primary objective is to ensure that the country being contained may not project its power. N. Korea can definitely project its power. This is a game of brinkmanship.
If Kim Jong Il's Korea gets what it wants this time then next time it need merely make the threat again. If we say "no" that time they will up the ante and perhaps adjust their version of DEFCON up a notch. This is a very deadly game. One that everyone one on Earth should be united against.

Allowing the DPRK more time to develop more weapons while giving into its blackmail does not weaken their position. It weakens the world's position to appease ( i hate to use that term) N. korea. If we give into their demands this time it sets a precedent that is hard to break. Incrementalism in this area ( Nuclear arms in a Deranged man's hands) would be detrimental.
There would be no reason for N. Korea's regime to not continue developing bigger and better nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them.
As you point out they are suicidal..and quite bellicose, having threatened word peace with a "sea of fire" and just recently, at the talk in Beijing, of using their weapons.

To allow the treat to exist would be tantamount to signing our own death warrant. To allow this regime's power to grow in hopes of staving off a conflict would merely postpone the time when you must put a stop to N. Korea's power lest they use it to harm their peaceful neighbors. That most surely would lead to the destruction of a great deal of people and property.

I beleive that by quick and decisive action we can end this. We dont have to go to war. But we must stand resolute, we must not give an inch to this petty dictator that starves his people. We must demand he disarm, and disarm immediately. Not 5 months from now, not 5 weeks from now, but immediately. I beleive, gathered from the reports before me, that to do any less is to set in motion a terrible chain of events that will inevitabley lead to ruin.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Hankerin' Tom ]


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 25 April 2003 12:20 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
War is exactly what you are talking about. Do you think that Kim, when faced with your demands, will just say "okay, you got me, I'll disarm"? You're still not hearing me. He EXPECTS the US to invade!! The threat of invasion is not a threat. To Kim, that is the default position, the inevitable outcome that he is trying to avoid.

It may be that Kim is too crazy to reason with. If that is the case, then god help us all (especially me! Vancouver is the prime target?!? WTF!?!?!). But assuming this before real negotiations have been attempted is insane. Another attempt must be made to honor the original agreement, and defuse this situation. A real attempt, not one that just plays for time in hopes that he and his regime will go away.

If the original deal is reinstated and he still won't comply with inspections and disarmament, then we will have something to talk about, but until then all I see is you and your kind putting your bravado before your common sense. "We have to set the terms. We have to lay down the law. We can't let these people walk all over us." Are these sentiments really worth a nuclear conflict? You'd better give your head a shake.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 25 April 2003 12:48 AM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
War is exactly what you are talking about. Do you think that Kim, when faced with your demands, will just say "okay, you got me, I'll disarm"? You're still not hearing me. He EXPECTS the US to invade!! The threat of invasion is not a threat. To Kim, that is the default position, the inevitable outcome that he is trying to avoid.

Why do people keep making this assumption about North Korea? North Korea has never, never shied away from mixing it up with the United States militarily. They've spent 50 years digging in, building up their army, and creeping it towards the DMZ. Their military doctrine, if anyone would bother reading up on it, revolves around the idea of making a quick, pre-emptive strike against the south and the US troops there (and gee, I thought Dubya thought that concept up). The DPRK has never shied away from killing off millions of their own citizens either. It's just as likely they're trying to get the US to leave the South, so they can invade and nuke whatever fleet the US sends to fight.

The US is not in a position to invade North Korea. Not without using nuclear weapons. Any build up of forces in the region and the North will attack first. And why would it want to? North Korea has no strategic importance. Part of the reason the situation exists today is because the US never really cared that much about Korea in the first place. The Americans took control of South Korea in 1945, to prevent outright occupation by the Russians (who had convieniently entered the war against Japan a few days before it ended). They knew the country needed massive amounts of aid, and that troops stationed there would unavailable elsewhere in the world, so they turned the South over the UN. In 1947 the Joint Chiefs of Staff had this to say on Korea's strategic significance:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that, from the standpoint of military security, the United States has little strategic interest in maintaining the present troops and bases in Korea

All of this evidence leads me to believe that the DPRK could very well want a glorious battle against the evil empire, and that the US has little interest in invading North Korea. But they're not going to, nor should they, back down an inch with the North.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 25 April 2003 01:32 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jke, that was my popint, we must exaust diplomatic means, but we must not give into the Dictator's demands.

quote:
I beleive that by quick and decisive action we can end this. We dont have to go to war. But we must stand resolute, we must not give an inch to this petty dictator that starves his people. We must demand he disarm, and disarm immediately. Not 5 months from now, not 5 weeks from now, but immediately. I beleive, gathered from the reports before me, that to do any less is to set in motion a terrible chain of events that will inevitabley lead to ruin

That is frommy prior post. As you can see

We dont have to go to war. But we must stand resolute, we must not give an inch to this petty dictator that starves his people. We must demand he disarm, and disarm immediately. Not 5 months from now, not 5 weeks from now, but immediately.

i dont say we must go to war. Quite the opposite. But we must not allow Kim to think we will choose to not go to war. it isnt a matter of machismo or winning, its a matter of life and death.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 25 April 2003 02:59 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, I agree with you. But we need NK to disarm, right? Nobody wants them to have nukes. They aren't going to do it because you demand it, obviously, despite all the pretty posturing (and pretty it is). So what's your plan? Are you agreeing with my position and just not saying so?
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 25 April 2003 03:08 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jacob, i do agree that we need to get Kim Jong Il to agree to the previous treaties and non-proliferation acts. But we cannot be weak about it. I am not saying we should shake our fists and/or rattle our sabres, only that we should make it seem as if we would be willing to do so.

And i agree, if n. Korea will not back down then we need to get China's Aquiescence to do what needs doing.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 April 2003 08:06 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We dont have to go to war. But we must stand resolute, we must not give an inch to this petty dictator that starves his people. We must demand he disarm, and disarm immediately. Not 5 months from now, not 5 weeks from now, but immediately.

That is a wrong headed position. If you don't intend to go to war and all they want is assurances they won't be invaded, then what the hell is the problem? If ther ewill be no invasion, assure there will be no invasion, let the stand down begin qand move to the next step of disarmament.

Stupid macho head games is what will get people killed.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DaddySno
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4002

posted 25 April 2003 09:21 AM      Profile for DaddySno     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you give an inch to N.Korea, they'll take a mile. When you start giving into a dictators demands, other brutal regimes around the world will think that's the way to go. Then you got a whole mess o' problems.
From: Potissauga | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 25 April 2003 01:58 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
We dont have to go to war. But we must stand resolute, we must not give an inch to this petty dictator that starves his people. We must demand he disarm, and disarm immediately. Not 5 months from now, not 5 weeks from now, but immediately

Where have we heard this before? Hmm. Oh yeah, I remember now. Saddam Bin something-or-other, wasn't it?

quote:
If you give an inch to N.Korea, they'll take a mile. When you start giving into a dictators demands, other brutal regimes around the world will think that's the way to go.

This isn't an obstinate kindergarten class. These are sovereign countries who are threatened quite openly by the world's most powerful military. The world has seen the destruction of Iraq, the new standard of diplomacy, and those countries on the hit list are talking in the only language Washington understands: threats and bluster.

It's a simple pattern. We are supposed to believe that Washington is rational and only wants the world to live free, while those whom they oppose are, but definition (since to oppose Washington is to oppose freedom and rationality) insane despots who hate freedom. I don't believe Saddam was insane (no moreso than the execution-loving POTUS), or Quaddafey, or Chavez, or Castro, or Kim Jong-Il(although his movie collection is pretty kooky. Then again, I think anyone owning a copy of "Titanic" is certifiable). To dismiss these complex situations on the simplistic and, dare I say, moronic notion of "You can't deal with that guy. He's craaaazzzy" is a dead end. You leave yourself only one option: Since you can't argue with crazy people (Babblers know what that's like), you put them away so they don't hurt themselves or others. For individuals, it's a Sanitorium, for Crazy Dictators™ it's Shock and Awe™.

Remember that the Korean War is not over. Only a 50 year cease-fire is in place, not a peace treaty.

An interesting history of the Korean war not from the pentagon.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 25 April 2003 03:40 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ultimately, again, one man is responsible for the poverty of millions. If Kim Jong-Il drops his Dr. Evil aspirations everyone would be immeasurable happier and healthier. Kim Jong-Il must have bought his scripts from the Iraqi Information Minister.
From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 25 April 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This was Josh Marshall's take on the NK "crisis" back in early January, still pretty much bang on as far as I can tell....
quote:
Some of the most sensible things said so far about the Korea situation and 1994 agreement are to be found in former Assistant Secretary of State Jamie Rubin's comments this morning on CNN (transcript to come later) and Colin Powell's comments to the Wall Street Journal in this morning's paper. The 1994 agreement was a stopgap, an agreement meant to address the immediate threat posed by North Korea's plutonium production facilities. It accomplished that and was followed by subsequent negotiations on ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons and other issues. (Conservatives, hawks, and yahoos who criticize the 1994 agreement or call it appeasement do so by comparing it to their imagined resolution of the 1994 crisis -- one brought about by force and/or their indomitable will and uncompromising moral clarity. The failure of that approach today is but one indication of its almost inevitable result back then.) The bright idea of the hawks, led by Dick Cheney, was to abandon that process or any effort to improve on the 1994 accords (Powell's approach) in favor of isolating the North Koreans into either submission or implosion (what Fareed Zakaria recently called "a policy of cheap rhetoric and cheap shots.") Powell and company are now trying to walk that policy back and replace it with one brought about by a mix of threats and inducements, which will build on and improve the 1994 Agreed Framework. If we're lucky we'll get the standard story: mess created by the Cheney and company, cleaned up by Powell, with the upshot of the detour being a lot of (hopefully remediable) collateral damage to our alliances and standing in the world.

From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 25 April 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hardly want to defend Saddam, chickenbum, but just as a point of information, his regime oversaw the highest standard of living in the middle east (excepting Israel). He was a brutal dictator, but he didn't bring poverty to his people. Just the opposite.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 29 April 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Further developments
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy M
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2183

posted 29 April 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for Tommy M     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rejected
From: Here | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2003 04:51 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hyun must be sooo ecstatic that Powell is now continuing this pointless game of brinkmanship with South Korean lives.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 April 2003 04:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
North Korea has offered to abandon its nuclear weapons programme, stop missile exports and readmit foreign inspectors in return for a US pledge not to attack, it was revealed last night.

From the first link and then from the second ....
quote:
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Tuesday that a North Korean proposal to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs would not lead in the right direction.

If the wrong direction is away from war and disarmament then the right direction is?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
sheep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2119

posted 29 April 2003 05:03 PM      Profile for sheep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
On Sunday, a senior foreign policy adviser to Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese Prime Minister, said that North Korea might be hoodwinking the international community in order to give it more time to perfect its nuclear weapons. Yukio Okamoto said: “I suspect that North Korea may be buying time until it can possess practical nuclear weapons.” Mr Koizumi told Tony Blair during a meeting in London on Saturday that the North Korean stand-off must be resolved peacefully.

source

Apparently not everyone is as trusting of the North Koreans as good old Wingnut.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 29 April 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No. There is also a Japanese policy analyst whom the Japanese PM has clearly ignored who is willing to spout Cheney's moronic "policy".

Honestly. How many Chuck Norris movies do you have to suffer through before you start to consider "you're a shifty-eyed liar AND the epitome of evil" to be diplomacy?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 29 April 2003 05:58 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well, that was an interesting thread read. redshift's comment on the jet stream was particularly good. as for their ICBM's and vangroover, the north koreans can barely reach the Aleutians.

an east asian arms race (if the north korean nukes can be verified) is exactly what the US does not want. too much of their just-in-time economy is linked to the region. the idea that a conflict with north korea won't happen due to a lack of oil is false.

The Independent, April 29

quote:
"What other countries are going to sit around after dinner saying, if Pakistan's got the bomb why haven't we?" said Mr Plesch [of the Royal United Services Institute]. On the list of those likely to be holding such conversations, he said, are Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and perhaps pre-eminently Japan, North Korea's uneasy neighbour.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 29 April 2003 10:46 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:

Honestly. How many Chuck Norris movies do you have to suffer through before you start to consider "you're a shifty-eyed liar AND the epitome of evil" to be diplomacy?

sheep was good with the very first one.

Oh, and don't read the link above, sheep. Look what I found in it:

quote:
But disarmament experts said that American lack of commitment to non-proliferation was as damaging as the behaviour of the proliferators.

I know sheep. How dare experts say something that contradicts your little world of white hats and black hats.

[ 29 April 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 April 2003 04:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting perspective:
quote:
The Chinese were in fact trying to calm down the Americans, who are growing very upset about North Korean brinkmanship. And it is not only a matter of sensitivity. Many Americans do believe that the lesson Pyongyang has drawn from the Iraq war is that it must possess weapons of mass destruction in order to make a US attack on North Korean very costly (see for instance "China's mediation backfires on North Korea" by Nayan Chanda, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, April 28).

They don't believe that Pyongyang wants to trade its nuclear weapons for anything, as the nuclear threat is the only life insurance for the regime. China has been arguing that the North Korean leaders have an interest in doing business with the US, as this could provide the necessary lifeline for the country. This is certainly true provided there is mutual trust, which is not there. In a nutshell: The US does not trust and won't do business with a nuclear Pyongyang, and Pyongyang doesn't trust and won't do business with the US without itself possessing nukes.


Here

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca