N Korea openly and admittedly broke and violated a treaty...and Bush stirred up trouble? hmmmm....guess old Georgy is to blame for everything.
No, currently no threat directly to the US. Just to some of their closest allies. Besides the fact that they could now hit Japan, N. Korea has one of the most robust and active missle development iductries in the world. For a thrid world country, that is saying a lot. If they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and continue to develop their missle technology, how long do you figure till they can hit US targets...perhaps Hawaii?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, they did this in response to what Bush was doing.
Just how do you think threatening them or going to war with them will stop them?
Yes, they did this in response to what Bush was doing.
Just how do you think threatening them or going to war with them will stop them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They disregarded and broke an international treaty because of what Bush was doing? They develop and sell advanced missle technolgy because of what Bush was doing?...what exactly was Bush doing thay would cause them to or excuse them for violating a treaty?
More to the point... do you really think that they violated the treaty *after* Bush's comments a year ago, and managed to go from zero to nukes in that time, or is it perhaps much more likely that their treaty violations go back several years, and that they are now using his comments as an excuse to justify doing so retroactively in the hopes that people will believe it?
Remember, Clinton did start legal actions through the UN against NKorea back a few years... this has been going on for quite some time.
Normally I don't get involved in the political discussions on this board but I believe the difference in threats here is pretty plain.
North Korea is a isolationist nation. They aren't terribly interested in possesing any nearby country's land except for South Korea which they don't want to turn into a nuclear wasteland. There is no country that North Korea would like to see nuked and wiped off the face of the earth that they can currently do that much damage to. It is widely believed that they would not use their nukes unless they felt they were provoked. Don't get me wrong they are dangerous, unpredictable and could kill alot of people but I believe Iraq as a nuclear power is more dangerous for the following reasons.
Iraq has expressed it's support for the distruction of Israel. They don't share a border or otherwise I believe they would have attacked them with WMD's a long time ago. Given the proper delivery methods, nukes and provocation, they would definitely fire a nuke at Israel and trigger a response in kind (a tactical nuke). Any attack of this nature on a muslum country by Israel would unite the muslum world and set into motion events that could trigger world war 3 given that we would be obliged to step in as would the Russians and perhaps China.
Granted worst case scenario but do we take a chance and allow a country like Iraq to obtain a nuclear arsenal which I'm sure everyone would agree would have no real defensive purpose whatsoever?
"The N. Koreans are going to do what they are going to do anyway. The idea that we can just intimidate any country into doing what we want is just naive and stupid."
actually - we can use political, economic, and military pressure to influence what N. Korea does. They may not cooperate, but that is what will escalate tensions. What is stupid, is the idea that the US should let countries who are HUGE proliferators of weapons to other countries just go about their business - and create nuklear weapons. This is even more important when you consider that N.K. is broke, and would gladly sell missile/nuke technology to the highest bidder to score some cash.
Ok guys I didn't say that the North Koreans are nice guys and will only do good. However Brinksmanship is a very delicate business and Bush doesn't handle it well. It's like all he knows is brute force.
I don't believe Bush has sanctions in mind.
I'd be willing to bet that many countries have this potential. They just don't admit it. The science of this has been around for almost 60 years.
So if a bunch of countries have this capability what we going to do? Brand them a axis of evil and attack them all?
Haven't you noticed that the way all countries react to us nowadays is different since Bush has been in office? This is not a positive change ether. They see him as nothing but a war monger and react in kind.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that we just ignore this situation. But the way Bush is handling it is a receipe for disaster.
Haven't you noticed that the way all countries react to us nowadays is different since Bush has been in office? This is not a positive change ether. They see him as nothing but a war monger and react in kind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm,.. Elaborate.
(And I don?t mean you start quoting some of the whack jobs that frequent these boards).
If anything, I believe that diplomatically the US is now taken much more seriously. Even the French and the Russians have stopped with their usual squawking. And the new German gov is pretty much in line with the old one. So I really don?t see where you get this impression.
(And I don?t mean you start quoting some of the whack jobs that frequent these boards).
If anything, I believe that diplomatically the US is now taken much more seriously. Even the French and the Russians have stopped with their usual squawking. And the new German gov is pretty much in line with the old one. So I really don?t see where you get this impression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're awful recent to start passing judgment on board members.
Also you obviously look at the news through Bush colored glasses. Nobody likes us anymore except the British. Make no mistake, this get tough policy will only be tolerated up to a point by the rest of the world. We can't take on everyone.
One more thing.........if we went to war with N. Korea over this it wouldn't be that simple. Eventually China would get involved. They don't like N. Korea's antics ether but if push came to shove I think we would be fighting them also. Do you really want to do that?
One more thing war doesn't bolster the economy the way it used to. It only makes certain companies rich.
You're awful recent to start passing judgment on board members.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I?m not.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Also you obviously look at the news through Bush colored glasses.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not. I?m not even an American.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Nobody likes us anymore except the British.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you think it?s about someone ?liking? you, then you have no business even posting on these kind of issues. Seriously.
It?s about greenbags, and who can get the most for their respective industries and contractors. And right now American industries are king. The Europeans don?t like it, but they have only themselves to blame. Let them champion the socialist flag.
And frankly I wouldn?t care or want the support of the European Bin Laden crown. You know, them radical European(?) leftist ?revolutionaries" with their monochrome checkered scarves, that so like to rationalize Bin Laden's blood lust for Americans. Seems to me like maybe you?ve been hanging with that crown, since you obviously can?t back your claim with any concrete evidence, other than what I presume are, anecdotal accounts?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Make no mistake, this get tough policy will only be tolerated up to a point by the rest of the world. We can't take on everyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when is Bin Laden and that N. Korean man child dictator everyone? More like no one to me.
Let's remember this insignificant space in time that I like to call "the cold war". Now there was a country named the Soviet Union which was packed, I say, packed with nuclear weapons and f all ever happened. Why you ask? Because once somebody uses one of these nuclear weapons it will result in everyone blowing everyone up and that would be so stupid that not even Mr.Bush would consider it. Well, he might, but thank God for the people around him eh?
Anyhoo - North Korea wants nuclear weapons because South Korea is so bloody chummy with the west that it feels it needs them. Arab countries want them because Israel already has them - US Christmas present. Chanukah, what ever...
Let's just not get our knickers in a twist, hope our wise leaders unanimously remove their heads from their backsides and get rid of these weapons all together. All it takes is for a few countries to sign a certain agreement. Then let's all wait for the nice little meteor to drop in to wipe the whole place out and lets hope what ever evolves after us is blessed with a lot less sons of Texas, Third Reich jews and dress wearing messengers of Allah. It will save them so much trouble.
Then let's all wait for the nice little meteor to drop in to wipe the whole place out and lets hope what ever evolves after us is blessed with a lot less sons of Texas, Third Reich jews and dress wearing messengers of Allah. It will save them so much trouble.
PS. No English either <hr></blockquote>
(bold is mine)
Catholic are you? You know not everyone likes subsidizing pedophiliacs dressed in silk robes..
[quote]Originally posted by macfenian:
All it takes is for a few countries to sign a certain agreement.
<hr></blockquote>
So they can violate the aforementioned agreement, just as the N. Koreans did. And now they have the bomb and you don't. That's very clever. You thought of this all by yourself?
Can we fight a three pronged War on Terror, War with Iraq, and War with North Korea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I can't add... but isn't hat a two pronger since Iraq & Korea are Axis of Evil and therefor Terror? Now of we throw in Canada as a third country THEN it would be a three pronger.
Not that I can't add... but isn't hat a two pronger since Iraq & Korea are Axis of Evil and therefor Terror? Now of we throw in Canada as a third country THEN it would be a three pronger. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote] Now there was a country named the Soviet Union which was packed, I say, packed with nuclear weapons and f all ever happened. Why you ask? Because once somebody uses one of these nuclear weapons it will result in everyone blowing everyone up and that would be so stupid that not even Mr.Bush would consider it.<hr></blockquote>
That is a completely different situation. And the only reason we survived that is actualy pure luck (read: Cuban Missile Crissis.) Anyway in my opinion the main fear that North Korea will have nuclear weapons is not that they might launch a missile at the U.S. But the fact that they could sell it to some other entity (also read: Osama) who would shoe-horn it into a Saudi Arabian tanker and sail it into a major US harbor and kablooey. The old ways of engagement from the Cold War no longer apply.
Personaly I think the North Koreans are playing a dangerous game of chicken. First they break a non-nuclear perliferation treaty, with the condition of having the U.S. build several power generating facilities for them (which we where.)
Then they remove all of the U.N.'s and IAEA's survalance and monitoring equipment. And now they are moving machine guns and troops into the demilitarized zone.
The fact is that North Korea is a dying country. Its people are starving, is economy is in shambles. If anyplace needs a regeme change this is it. Conditions have gone from bad to worse in that country, and it needs to change.
What to do? Go back two year and elect a man that doesn´t need so much time to "think things over" that an unique window of opportunity closed before him.
What was N. Korea? A land in need of everything including leadership that is able to look at the world through a pair of realistic glasses. What did it have? A tiny link to the land of milk and honey (the world outside its boarders) that wasn´t considered "selling out" of its ideological ideas (sunshine policy of south korea and US). What was the last thing needed? Someone to pull the plug on the sunshine policy and call its scitzofrenic leaders evil.
Look out. This may end up making that DDR ram a lot more expensive. And then some...
N.Korea's main threat is not in their ability to attack U.S.
it's as Nuke Dealer to the world.
With clients including terrorists and disgruntled nations hostile to the U.S. ,
THAT is the main point.
Secondarily,
it is U.S. strengthening it's Asian position as China continues to emerge as an economic power.
China continues to evolve with a changing of the guard from the old communist leadership to the new generation about to take power there. That region of the world needs to be "handled".
Comments
<strong>
N Korea openly and admittedly broke and violated a treaty...and Bush stirred up trouble? hmmmm....guess old Georgy is to blame for everything.
No, currently no threat directly to the US. Just to some of their closest allies. Besides the fact that they could now hit Japan, N. Korea has one of the most robust and active missle development iductries in the world. For a thrid world country, that is saying a lot. If they are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and continue to develop their missle technology, how long do you figure till they can hit US targets...perhaps Hawaii?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, they did this in response to what Bush was doing.
Just how do you think threatening them or going to war with them will stop them?
<strong>
Yes, they did this in response to what Bush was doing.
Just how do you think threatening them or going to war with them will stop them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
They disregarded and broke an international treaty because of what Bush was doing? They develop and sell advanced missle technolgy because of what Bush was doing?...what exactly was Bush doing thay would cause them to or excuse them for violating a treaty?
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
Remember, Clinton did start legal actions through the UN against NKorea back a few years... this has been going on for quite some time.
North Korea is a isolationist nation. They aren't terribly interested in possesing any nearby country's land except for South Korea which they don't want to turn into a nuclear wasteland. There is no country that North Korea would like to see nuked and wiped off the face of the earth that they can currently do that much damage to. It is widely believed that they would not use their nukes unless they felt they were provoked. Don't get me wrong they are dangerous, unpredictable and could kill alot of people but I believe Iraq as a nuclear power is more dangerous for the following reasons.
Iraq has expressed it's support for the distruction of Israel. They don't share a border or otherwise I believe they would have attacked them with WMD's a long time ago. Given the proper delivery methods, nukes and provocation, they would definitely fire a nuke at Israel and trigger a response in kind (a tactical nuke). Any attack of this nature on a muslum country by Israel would unite the muslum world and set into motion events that could trigger world war 3 given that we would be obliged to step in as would the Russians and perhaps China.
Granted worst case scenario but do we take a chance and allow a country like Iraq to obtain a nuclear arsenal which I'm sure everyone would agree would have no real defensive purpose whatsoever?
actually - we can use political, economic, and military pressure to influence what N. Korea does. They may not cooperate, but that is what will escalate tensions. What is stupid, is the idea that the US should let countries who are HUGE proliferators of weapons to other countries just go about their business - and create nuklear weapons. This is even more important when you consider that N.K. is broke, and would gladly sell missile/nuke technology to the highest bidder to score some cash.
I don't believe Bush has sanctions in mind.
I'd be willing to bet that many countries have this potential. They just don't admit it. The science of this has been around for almost 60 years.
So if a bunch of countries have this capability what we going to do? Brand them a axis of evil and attack them all?
Haven't you noticed that the way all countries react to us nowadays is different since Bush has been in office? This is not a positive change ether. They see him as nothing but a war monger and react in kind.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that we just ignore this situation. But the way Bush is handling it is a receipe for disaster.
<strong>
Haven't you noticed that the way all countries react to us nowadays is different since Bush has been in office? This is not a positive change ether. They see him as nothing but a war monger and react in kind.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm,.. Elaborate.
(And I don?t mean you start quoting some of the whack jobs that frequent these boards).
If anything, I believe that diplomatically the US is now taken much more seriously. Even the French and the Russians have stopped with their usual squawking. And the new German gov is pretty much in line with the old one. So I really don?t see where you get this impression.
<strong>
Hmm,.. Elaborate.
(And I don?t mean you start quoting some of the whack jobs that frequent these boards).
If anything, I believe that diplomatically the US is now taken much more seriously. Even the French and the Russians have stopped with their usual squawking. And the new German gov is pretty much in line with the old one. So I really don?t see where you get this impression.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're awful recent to start passing judgment on board members.
Also you obviously look at the news through Bush colored glasses. Nobody likes us anymore except the British. Make no mistake, this get tough policy will only be tolerated up to a point by the rest of the world. We can't take on everyone.
One more thing war doesn't bolster the economy the way it used to. It only makes certain companies rich.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>I'm afraid..... of Bush.</strong><hr></blockquote>
chliichind !
<strong>
You're awful recent to start passing judgment on board members.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I?m not.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Also you obviously look at the news through Bush colored glasses.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not. I?m not even an American.
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Nobody likes us anymore except the British.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you think it?s about someone ?liking? you, then you have no business even posting on these kind of issues. Seriously.
It?s about greenbags, and who can get the most for their respective industries and contractors. And right now American industries are king. The Europeans don?t like it, but they have only themselves to blame. Let them champion the socialist flag.
And frankly I wouldn?t care or want the support of the European Bin Laden crown. You know, them radical European(?) leftist ?revolutionaries" with their monochrome checkered scarves, that so like to rationalize Bin Laden's blood lust for Americans. Seems to me like maybe you?ve been hanging with that crown, since you obviously can?t back your claim with any concrete evidence, other than what I presume are, anecdotal accounts?
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong>
Make no mistake, this get tough policy will only be tolerated up to a point by the rest of the world. We can't take on everyone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since when is Bin Laden and that N. Korean man child dictator everyone? More like no one to me.
Let's remember this insignificant space in time that I like to call "the cold war". Now there was a country named the Soviet Union which was packed, I say, packed with nuclear weapons and f all ever happened. Why you ask? Because once somebody uses one of these nuclear weapons it will result in everyone blowing everyone up and that would be so stupid that not even Mr.Bush would consider it. Well, he might, but thank God for the people around him eh?
Anyhoo - North Korea wants nuclear weapons because South Korea is so bloody chummy with the west that it feels it needs them. Arab countries want them because Israel already has them - US Christmas present. Chanukah, what ever...
Let's just not get our knickers in a twist, hope our wise leaders unanimously remove their heads from their backsides and get rid of these weapons all together. All it takes is for a few countries to sign a certain agreement. Then let's all wait for the nice little meteor to drop in to wipe the whole place out and lets hope what ever evolves after us is blessed with a lot less sons of Texas, Third Reich jews and dress wearing messengers of Allah. It will save them so much trouble.
PS. No English either
Then let's all wait for the nice little meteor to drop in to wipe the whole place out and lets hope what ever evolves after us is blessed with a lot less sons of Texas, Third Reich jews and dress wearing messengers of Allah. It will save them so much trouble.
PS. No English either
(bold is mine)
Catholic are you? You know not everyone likes subsidizing pedophiliacs dressed in silk robes..
[quote]Originally posted by macfenian:
All it takes is for a few countries to sign a certain agreement.
<hr></blockquote>
So they can violate the aforementioned agreement, just as the N. Koreans did. And now they have the bomb and you don't. That's very clever. You thought of this all by yourself?
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>Do nothing. You're dead.
Can we fight a three pronged War on Terror, War with Iraq, and War with North Korea?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that I can't add... but isn't hat a two pronger since Iraq & Korea are Axis of Evil and therefor Terror? Now of we throw in Canada as a third country THEN it would be a three pronger.
<strong>
Not that I can't add... but isn't hat a two pronger since Iraq & Korea are Axis of Evil and therefor Terror? Now of we throw in Canada as a third country THEN it would be a three pronger.
No there is the general war on terror also.
That is a completely different situation. And the only reason we survived that is actualy pure luck (read: Cuban Missile Crissis.) Anyway in my opinion the main fear that North Korea will have nuclear weapons is not that they might launch a missile at the U.S. But the fact that they could sell it to some other entity (also read: Osama) who would shoe-horn it into a Saudi Arabian tanker and sail it into a major US harbor and kablooey. The old ways of engagement from the Cold War no longer apply.
Personaly I think the North Koreans are playing a dangerous game of chicken. First they break a non-nuclear perliferation treaty, with the condition of having the U.S. build several power generating facilities for them (which we where.)
Then they remove all of the U.N.'s and IAEA's survalance and monitoring equipment. And now they are moving machine guns and troops into the demilitarized zone.
The fact is that North Korea is a dying country. Its people are starving, is economy is in shambles. If anyplace needs a regeme change this is it. Conditions have gone from bad to worse in that country, and it needs to change.
Meanwhile North Korean state-owned media continues to brainwash its citizens, and praise the "hot wind of admiration, fascination, reverence, praise and worship for the greatness of leader Kim Jong-il" which it said had been "blowing all over the world this year". <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2611751.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2611751.stm</A>;
What was N. Korea? A land in need of everything including leadership that is able to look at the world through a pair of realistic glasses. What did it have? A tiny link to the land of milk and honey (the world outside its boarders) that wasn´t considered "selling out" of its ideological ideas (sunshine policy of south korea and US). What was the last thing needed? Someone to pull the plug on the sunshine policy and call its scitzofrenic leaders evil.
Look out. This may end up making that DDR ram a lot more expensive. And then some...
it's as Nuke Dealer to the world.
With clients including terrorists and disgruntled nations hostile to the U.S. ,
THAT is the main point.
Secondarily,
it is U.S. strengthening it's Asian position as China continues to emerge as an economic power.
China continues to evolve with a changing of the guard from the old communist leadership to the new generation about to take power there. That region of the world needs to be "handled".
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: bluesigns ]
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: bluesigns ]</p>