The North Korean Situation

[PhotoJones]

No body needs to have nukes.

smartest thing said in this thread yet...

[Tangled Web]

[/B]


Thus, a big win for Bush!!

He stuck to his guns and was right. :yay:

Really it's not.

Even if it is, even the Oakland Raiders win sometimes. You call this a big victory for Bush when each month we lose more and more young men and women in Iraq. Each month the debt gets larger and larger. Each week his approval rating plummets. Yup, big win indeed.

[Matt]

I think South Korea was more instrumental than Japan. All Japan did was raise fears that they would re-militarize.

A Japanese re-militarization is a pretty big threat to North Korea. Japan would probably be up there with (if not ahead of) the US and Britian in terms of technology. Furthermore, their man power wouldn't be too shabby either, probably about double that of the UK. That would shift the greatest military strength in Asia from communist, North Korea supporting China to westernized, capitalist, South Korea supporting Japan. That would be a HUGE blow to NK.

[Tangled Web]

No body needs to have nukes.

Agreed. Unfortunatley we live in a wprld where power is everything and it's about who has the most powerful weapons and everyone can't give thiers up because there's always someone out there to screw you. It's a shame. Imagine though.

[hippie_hunter]

A Japanese re-militarization is a pretty big threat to North Korea. Japan would probably be up there with (if not ahead of) the US and Britian in terms of technology. Furthermore, their man power wouldn't be too shabby either, probably about double that of the UK. That would shift the greatest military strength in Asia from communist, North Korea supporting China to westernized, capitalist, South Korea supporting Japan. That would be a HUGE blow to NK.

You know, personally, I support the remilitarization of Japan.

[Kritish]

You know, personally, I support the remilitarization of Japan.

Japan does need to create a new military. North Korea's too big of a threat for them to just have the United States for a military.

[Matt]

You know, personally, I support the remilitarization of Japan.

I'm not sold either way on it. I can see both benefits and problems caused by it. Although, I personally think Japan may very well be the most productive, clean, well run first world country on the planet right now. I can see how a military could easily mess that up. I think Japan is perfect the way it is.

[Mr Sparkle]

Does anyone here believe this is true?? And if it is true..........as much as it may "PAIN" most of you, isn't this a significant win for the current adminstration???? :yay:

http://browndailysqueal.com/archives/ap_president_bush_sat_25jun05_210.jpg

well, that depends on how you look at it.
see, the thing is this development came out of talks, ya know? diplomatic solutions.
so while I don't think that the US should be the only one with nuclear weapons ( and /or her "allies" that seems idiotic) if this is in fact a positive development it would just highlight the fact that for the past seven years the administration of President Bush has been going about it the wrong way.
you know? with wars and stuff.
because it seems that diplomatic solutions yield the best results.
so, you know, when you think about it, their victory here actually underscores their fantastic failures everywhere else.

[Prognosticator]

Agreed. I give the Bushies credit for sticking in there and not stomping off and leaving the talks like spoiled children, but China and Japan were instrumental in these talks. And the proof will be in the pudding. N. Korea isn't exactly renowned for keeping their word.

jag

They're SUPPOSED TO BE! Those countries are the ones who stand to lose the most if nuclear weapons come into play during war.

[jaguarr]

They're SUPPOSED TO BE! Those countries are the ones who stand to lose the most if nuclear weapons come into play during war.

I don't disagree. At all. But to stroke Bush's dick for actually engaging in diplomacy, like he SUPPOSED TO, is asinine.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

You know, personally, I support the remilitarization of Japan.

consider it done then :o

[Mr. Credible]

why is it that we are alloud to have nuclear bombs, but no one else is?

especially when we're the only country stupid enough to have used a nuke.

go figure.

but just out of curiosity... how do we knnow they're not lying? i mean, what if they just put their nukes somewhere else, and told us they didn't have any? how would we know the difference?

and, also out of curiousity, how hard is it to blow something up in america? i mean, a bunch of kids can put together a pipe bomb, so how about a terrorist living in america, how hard would it be for him to put together a sizeable bomb, and do some damage in a mall or something? i know this is off subject, but seriously, as many people supposedly hate us, why aren't there more bombings in america? it'd be real easy, so, um... i don't know.

[enterthemadness]

Well, at least it isn't long range.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/07/nkorea.missile/index.html

[PhotoJones]

I really don't understand how it's okay that we have weapons, but other countries can't.

[enterthemadness]

I really don't understand how it's okay that we have weapons, but other countries can't.

I don't even like the fact that we have nukes. Nukes = messing up the world. I rather see the devil rise up and unleash hell on earth than live during a nuke war. Kid you not.

[PhotoJones]

I don't even like the fact that we have nukes. Nukes = messing up the world. I rather see the devil rise up and unleash hell on earth than live during a nuke war. Kid you not.

Well that's kind of what I'm saying. Why is it that we can have enough firepower to detroy he world 100 times over, but we threaten military action when a anonther country wants to develop some.

[moraldeficiency]

I really don't understand how it's okay that we have weapons, but other countries can't.

Because we had them first. It's not fair by any means, but it's a lot better to be the only country capable of mass destruction, therefore giving you the upper hand in most matters, than having everyone on an equal playing field.

[enterthemadness]

Well that's kind of what I'm saying. Why is it that we can have enough firepower to detroy he world 100 times over, but we threaten military action when a anonther country wants to develop some.

Well, the reason....we(the government) think that other countries aren't responsible enough to have long range missles and/or nukes. To tell you the truth, no one really is. Takes one really bad day to just press that button. Then *boom*

Although...countries could say they need world ending weapons out of fear or alien attacks. But even then...stupid. Aliens would have attacked us by now.

[PhotoJones]

Because we had them first. It's not fair by any means, but it's a lot better to be the only country capable of mass destruction, therefore giving you the upper hand in most matters, than having everyone on an equal playing field.

To think that is to assume we're right. That we're the good guys. And people wonder why everyone else hates us.

[Majin Boo]

Because we had them first. It's not fair by any means, but it's a lot better to be the only country capable of mass destruction, therefore giving you the upper hand in most matters, than having everyone on an equal playing field.

the only country to ever use nukes is USA

[bulok]

I really don't understand how it's okay that we have weapons, but other countries can't.

Because we had them first and we don't want anyone else to have one in case they use it on us.

It's called self preservation. There's nothing fair or right about it at all.

[moraldeficiency]

To think that is to assume we're right. That we're the good guys. And people wonder why everyone else hates us.

I'm not saying we're right. I'm saying we were first, and that's where the advantage comes from. The less nukes and missles the better, but no one's giving anything up so the only way is to restrict other countries from making them. It's not fair, but this has been happening since the dawn of civilization. For a great example look at what happened with the Treaty of Versailles.

If another nation (any nation) got nukes first they would have done the say.

To the Boo:

Of course we're the only nation to use them. Were we just supposed to explain to other nations that we have an ultrapowerful secret weapon? We were in war and we ended it quick by a show of force. Right or wrong it's over and we haven't done it again.

[PhotoJones]

Because we had them first and we don't want anyone else to have one in case they use it on us.

It's called self preservation. There's nothing fair or right about it at all.

And that makes it wrong.

I'm just sick of the hillbilly mentality that America can do whatever it wants, and the rest of world can suck an egg. I'm thankful that I was born here, and that I've never gone hungry, I've never been without. But at the same time, this country blows. I can completely understand how outsiders view us as devils.

[Darthphere]

the only country to ever use nukes is USA

Damn right. That will show those *******s who's boss. :o :cmad: :o

[Darthphere]

And that makes it wrong.

I'm just sick of the hillbilly mentality that America can do whatever it wants, and the rest of world can suck an egg. I'm thankful that I was born here, and that I've never gone hungry, I've never been without. But at the same time, this country blows. I can completely understand how outsiders view us as devils.

I'm going to sit back and wait for someone to use the "If you hate it so much, leave" argument.

*recliner*

[bulok]

Damn right. That will show those *******s who's boss. :o :cmad: :o

LOL

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/bulok/funny/usa.gif

[PhotoJones]

I'm going to sit back and wait for someone to use the "If you hate it so much, leave" argument.

*recliner*

That's usually Celldog's department. And going along with that, what's wrong being critical?

[Darthphere]

That's usually Celldog's department. And going along with that, what's wrong being critical?

According to the 1st Amendment, nothing. But, there's also nothing wrong with someone being critical about you being critical. And the cycle continues.

[moraldeficiency]

That's usually Celldog's department. And going along with that, what's wrong being critical?

Nothing, though I do wonder if we weren't the first with the nukes (pick any other country) do you think they would have handled it differently. It's ok to be pissed cause a wrong was committed but if everyone would have done the exact same thing (or worse) than isn't the real problem with every country and by extension every person in the world?

[PhotoJones]

According to the 1st Amendment, nothing. But, there's also nothing wrong with someone being critical about you being critical. And the cycle continues.

I know you thought that question was aimed at you, but it was more of a rhetorical question aimed at no one.

[Darthphere]

I know you thought that question was aimed at you, but it was more of a rhetorical question aimed at no one.

I didn't think the question was aimed at me. And there is no such thing as a rhetorical question on the internet.:whatever:

[PhotoJones]

Nothing, though I do wonder if we weren't the first with the nukes (pick any other country) do you think they would have handled it differently. It's ok to be pissed cause a wrong was committed but if everyone would have done the exact same thing (or worse) than isn't the real problem with every country and by extension every person in the world?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying it's better we have nuclear weapons, and have had them first, for fear of other countries having them?

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying it's better we have nuclear weapons, and have had them first, for fear of other countries having them?

I'm not talking better or worse or right or wrong. I'm speaking in cold hard uncaring truth.

I'm saying any country that developed nuclear weapons first would have 1. used them to prove they existed (especially during WW2) and 2. done everything possible to limit other countries from gaining them.

I'm saying that the tech was coming out whether anyone wanted it or not. It was going to be used, whether we liked it or not. If we didn't have it someone else would have done the exact same thing or worse (used it a @hitload of times). Now maybe you know of a country of true nobility and justice, but I haven't heard of one yet. So what I'm asking is if everyone else would have done the same thing, then you're only actual complaint is either against the entire world, or you're just upset we got there first.

[PhotoJones]

I'm not talking better or worse or right or wrong. I'm speaking in cold hard uncaring truth.

I'm saying any country that developed nuclear weapons first would have 1. used them to prove they existed (especially during WW2) and 2. done everything possible to limit other countries from gaining them.

I'm saying that the tech was coming out whether anyone wanted it or not. It was going to be used, whether we liked it or not. If we didn't have it someone else would have done the exact same thing or worse (used it a @hitload of times). Now maybe you know of a country of true nobility and justice, but I haven't heard of one yet. So what I'm asking is if everyone else would have done the same thing, then you're only actual complaint is either against the entire world, or you're just upset we got there first.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I'm not upset that we developed the technology first. I get tired of this mentality that everything we do outside of the country is for betterment of everyone. It's like saying "God bless America". Well, what about everyone else? Just America, huh? It's this mentality that we're the only ones that matter, I guess is what I'm saying.

I don't know...I don't feel like explaining it further right now.

[Mee]

Well, at least it isn't long range.

Yeah, they'll never reach us.


Silly Asians. :o

[moraldeficiency]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I'm not upset that we developed the technology first. I get tired of this mentality that everything we do outside of the country is for betterment of everyone. It's like saying "God bless America". Well, what about everyone else? Just America, huh? It's this mentality that we're the only ones that matter, I guess is what I'm saying.

I don't know...I don't feel like explaining it further right now.

I see what you're saying. We're selfish, I agree. But then everyone is too, so I try not to care about that too much. We do a lot of bad, but we do a lot of good too. Personally I think God hates all countries (how else do you explain politicians?). I agree we're not the only ones that matter, but we're the ones that matter the most to us and for better or worse since we have the power we matter immensely to a bunch of countries we don't know anything about or care for (until we need something from them).

Understand I'm not saying this is right or fair, but it's true.

[SuBe]

150,000 Witness North Korea Execution of Factory Boss Whose Crime Was Making International Phone Calls

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

SEOUL, South Korea — A North Korean factory chief accused of making international phone calls was executed by a firing squad in a stadium before 150,000 spectators, a South Korean aid group reported.
Public executions had declined since 2000 amid international criticism but have been increasing, targeting officials accused of drug trafficking, embezzlement and other crimes, the Good Friends aid agency said in a report on the North's human rights (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313226,00.html#).
In October, the North executed the head of a factory in South Pyongan province for making international calls on 13 phones he installed in a factory basement, the aid group said. He was executed by a firing squad in a stadium before a crowd of 150,000.
Six people were crushed to death and 34 others injured in an apparent stampede as they left the stadium, the aid group said.
Most North Koreans are banned from communicating with the outside world, part of the regime's authoritarian policies seeking to prevent any challenge to the iron-fisted rule of Kim Jong Il (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313226,00.html#).
The North in recent months has carried out four similar public executions by firing squad against regional officials and heads of factories, the aid group said.
/**/
"It is aimed at educating [North Koreans] to control society and prevent crimes," Good Friends head Venerable Pomnyun said at a news conference.
Good Friends, which did not say how it obtained the information, gave no exact figures of the public executions this year. Some of the group's previous reports of what was happening inside the North later have been confirmed.
The report came a week after a U.N. General Assembly committee adopted a draft resolution expressing "very serious concern" at reports of widespread human rights violations in North Korea (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313226,00.html#), including public executions.
The resolution, co-sponsored by more than 50 countries including the United States (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313226,00.html#) and many other Western nations, was sent to the 192-member General Assembly for a final vote.
The North has condemned the draft, saying it was inaccurate and biased.
The communist country insists it does not violate human rights but long has been accused of imposing the death penalty for political reasons, holding thousands in prison camps, torturing border-crossers and severely restricting freedom of expression and religion.

[Holly]

have fun Babs!

[DarthRekal]

in a stadium.. man .. medeival

[bullets]

where can i get tickets to the next one?

[DarthRekal]

where can i get tickets to the next one?
youtube it:huh:

[Warhammer]

Those f***ing North Koreans.

[tzarinna]

God Bless America.

[AhabTheArab]

God Bless America.

well i don't believe they are the only country who frowns on this sort of thing...

[Superman]

Why is no one here talking about this?:huh:

I think it's a good thing that we are finally talking to them instead of threatening them.

I do find it funny though that just a few weeks ago Bush and McCain both was bashing Obama saying he was an "Appeaser" and then Bush turns around and does the very thing he said Obama would do.:whatever:

Anyway, What do you all think about this deal Bush made with NK?

[DACrowe]

A great achievement in diplomacy, I'll be cautious about. The North Koreans can still be playing us to stall for time, but it is a good step in the right direction and if it is an honest brokering deal...well done. Better late than never.

[Manic]

So how exactly can we tell which world leaders who hate us it's okay to negotiate with?

[Kelly]

The region of East Asia, is much easier to work with than the countries surrounding Iran. China may not be listening to the US (not that we are talking a whole hell of alot) as far as Sudan is concerned, but in their own backyard they will listen alittle more. So building a solid diplomacy in East Asia, is a hell of alot easier than building one in the Middle East with Iran.

[StorminNorman]

Why is no one here talking about this?:huh:

I think it's a good thing that we are finally talking to them instead of threatening them.

I do find it funny though that just a few weeks ago Bush and McCain both was bashing Obama saying he was an "Appeaser" and then Bush turns around and does the very thing he said Obama would do.:whatever:

Anyway, What do you all think about this deal Bush made with NK?

Have you not been following this story? Bush and the six party talks had reach an agreement with North Korea over a year ago. This is not new.

[StorminNorman]

So how exactly can we tell which world leaders who hate us it's okay to negotiate with?

We have tried diplomacy with Iraq, North Korea and Iran. North Korea is the only one that it was effective with. Simple as that. Diplomacy is, and has always been, the first, second and third option.

[DACrowe]

There was no diplomatic solution sought in Iraq. We gave an ultimatum and Bush knew as early as early 2002 the exact date bombing in Iraq would begin. The rest was BS political posturing and lying calculations to manipulate the pubic for support with faux patriotism. As for Iran, it is hard to seek a diplomatic solution when one country pretends the other doesn't exist.

[Superman4ever]

We have tried diplomacy with Iraq, North Korea and Iran. North Korea is the only one that it was effective with. Simple as that. Diplomacy is, and has always been, the first, second and third option.

When did we try diplomacy with Iraq or Iran that didn't involve threatening, demonizing them, labeling them as terrorist, and/or give them an ultimatum? It's cowboy diplomacy but it's not real diplomacy and it doesn't work.

I think China and Japan had more of a role with N. Korea than we did.

[Kelly]

The sanctions for both Iran and Iraq were set, not by us, but by the UN. Neither country held to those sanctions.

Also, as far as Iraq, high ups in the UN, had their hands in Sadaam's pockets, so of course no other diplomacy was going to work.

Hell if they aren't going to follow the sanctions, and work with the diplomacy of the United Nations, I doubt that they will work with any other diplomacy.

The problem in the Middle East was that there was NO COOPERATION with other Middle Eastern countries, they could care less. Its a different story in East Asia. The surrounding countries do take the diplomacy talk seriously. AND, the United Nations has little to do with it.

Sorry, I do not trust the UN, in areas like this......

They handicap the process, they don't help it.


BTW, I hate the Iraq war. I do not think we should have gone, and I think we should have been out YESTERDAY. I've lost 3 former students to that ****ing war. So I am not a fan of Bush. BUT, I'll be damned if I'm going to leave the UN out of any of the **** up in the Middle East, and I don't want them anywhere near the talks in East Asia.

[The Senator]

I think it is fairly interesting how the situation in North Korea unfolded:

-This is a country which has made vague threats to other nations in the far East (most notably Japan).

-It is a country which has abused and neglected the needs of its citizens and is governed by a system which can only be described as the exact opposite of democracy.

-This is a country which has a long, futile history with the United States and other Western nations.

-In a provocative act, North Korea launched several missiles over Japan in what appeared to be a threat.

-Two years ago, the country detonated a nuclear weapon, defying the warnings of the United States and other nations

-The United States and the UN place sanctions on North Korea, they magically halt their nuclear program, and everyone is living happily ever after.

Fine. Perfect. I'm glad the United States and North Korea solved things diplomatically-- however, let's look at Iran, shall we?

-This is a country which democratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into office. He didn't form a coup or murder his opponent in the election; he was democratically elected.

-This is a country which has a nuclear program, but no nuclear weapons. In fact, it won't have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon for another 3-6 years, and that's a modest estimate.

-This is a country which has made verbal threats to Israel.

Yet, for some reason, the Bush administration has upped the rhetoric in regards to Iran, has refused to meet with Iran's leaders, and has gone so far to vaguely imply that a war with that country could be brewing. Meanwhile, we met with the leaders of a totalitarian country which not only had a fully functioning nuclear program, but had detonated a nuclear weapon, and didn't even publicly consider military action against this country?

This whole situation proves that this administration knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy. And while I'm glad things worked out with North Korea without having to beat the war drums, I feel as if this is an absolute travesty when you look at how we're handling Iran. This is really hypocrisy at its best.

[Superman]

We have tried diplomacy with Iraq, North Korea and Iran. North Korea is the only one that it was effective with. Simple as that. Diplomacy is, and has always been, the first, second and third option.The question is, What story are you following? The only diplomacy Bush tried with Iraq was "Do as I say or die". That may be considered diplomacy in your Neo-con circles but here in the real world it's anything but.

[Kelly]

I'm really getting tired of the "neo-con" comment being thrown around here at people, without really knowing if it is appropriate or not. In Stormin's case, as long as I've known him, he has not fit in that category.

Labeling is extremely tiring.

[Superman]

I'm really getting tired of the "neo-con" comment being thrown around here at people, without really knowing if it is appropriate or not. In Stormin's case, as long as I've known him, he has not fit in that category.

Labeling is extremely tiring.


And I'm tired of the word "Liberal" being used as a bad word, But that's for another thread.


Now lets get a few things straight. I didn't call HIM a "Neo-con" What I said was his "Neo-con circles" Implying that he knows some or is friends with neo-con.

The reason I said that is because StorminNorman has said that his father was a Republican Party political adviser and that they know people that are neo-cons, Namely Karl Rove, Whom Norman's father appointed to his first major Republican Party position, and Charlie Black, The man who said that McCain would benefit from another terrorist attack.

If it makes you feel better, he also knows James Carville and appointed Karl Rove to his first major Republican Party position. :)

My father knows Charlie Black, he has worked closely with Charlie Black, my father is friends with Charlie Black.

Charlie Black should of known better, it was stupid to say something like that in an instance where it would be reported.

To call him evil or wicked or even saying he was incorrect is stupid, however.

Now, Does knowing neo-cons like Charlie Black and Karl Rove make you a neo-con? You tell me. All I know is that Norman knows a few of them thus the reason I used the phrase "Neo-con circles". Was it "appropriate" to use the term "Neo-con circles"? Well considering all that I posted above, I'd say yes, It was "appropriate" to imply that he knows some neo-cons.:yay:

[Zen]

I think it is fairly interesting how the situation in North Korea unfolded:

-This is a country which has made vague threats to other nations in the far East (most notably Japan).

-It is a country which has abused and neglected the needs of its citizens and is governed by a system which can only be described as the exact opposite of democracy.

-This is a country which has a long, futile history with the United States and other Western nations.

-In a provocative act, North Korea launched several missiles over Japan in what appeared to be a threat.

-Two years ago, the country detonated a nuclear weapon, defying the warnings of the United States and other nations

-The United States and the UN place sanctions on North Korea, they magically halt their nuclear program, and everyone is living happily ever after.

Fine. Perfect. I'm glad the United States and North Korea solved things diplomatically-- however, let's look at Iran, shall we?

-This is a country which democratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into office. He didn't form a coup or murder his opponent in the election; he was democratically elected.

-This is a country which has a nuclear program, but no nuclear weapons. In fact, it won't have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon for another 3-6 years, and that's a modest estimate.

-This is a country which has made verbal threats to Israel.

Yet, for some reason, the Bush administration has upped the rhetoric in regards to Iran, has refused to meet with Iran's leaders, and has gone so far to vaguely imply that a war with that country could be brewing. Meanwhile, we met with the leaders of a totalitarian country which not only had a fully functioning nuclear program, but had detonated a nuclear weapon, and didn't even publicly consider military action against this country?

This whole situation proves that this administration knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy. And while I'm glad things worked out with North Korea without having to beat the war drums, I feel as if this is an absolute travesty when you look at how we're handling Iran. This is really hypocrisy at its best.

Holy christ.

I was going to go at length into Kels post but you've quelled my torent man.

i thought you were on the other side of this from previous exchanges with you about Iran. i have to now re-evaluate my judging software. this crap is out of date!

all i will add is... a little knowledge on the history of Iranian politics directly explains why they have a small problem in dealing with the united states and other western nations.

stomping around like some detached overlord, without reguard for the past, is simply going to further the problems we face. the reason why its easier in North Korea...

we understand them from being over there since the Korean War. thats the only kind of diplomatic relationship some people will allow... a long drawn out version of Osmosis through years of war. im against going through this convoluted process with Iran and Iraq like we did with vietnam and Korea. lets grow up as a country shall we?

for christ sakes... its all the same in the end. how about we try to actively understand them and then act. lets get out of this stupid cycle. it has nothing to do with region, and everything to do with how we have been running this derigible since world war 2

[jaguarr]

I think it is fairly interesting how the situation in North Korea unfolded:

-This is a country which has made vague threats to other nations in the far East (most notably Japan).

-It is a country which has abused and neglected the needs of its citizens and is governed by a system which can only be described as the exact opposite of democracy.

-This is a country which has a long, futile history with the United States and other Western nations.

-In a provocative act, North Korea launched several missiles over Japan in what appeared to be a threat.

-Two years ago, the country detonated a nuclear weapon, defying the warnings of the United States and other nations

-The United States and the UN place sanctions on North Korea, they magically halt their nuclear program, and everyone is living happily ever after.

Fine. Perfect. I'm glad the United States and North Korea solved things diplomatically-- however, let's look at Iran, shall we?

-This is a country which democratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into office. He didn't form a coup or murder his opponent in the election; he was democratically elected.

-This is a country which has a nuclear program, but no nuclear weapons. In fact, it won't have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon for another 3-6 years, and that's a modest estimate.

-This is a country which has made verbal threats to Israel.

Yet, for some reason, the Bush administration has upped the rhetoric in regards to Iran, has refused to meet with Iran's leaders, and has gone so far to vaguely imply that a war with that country could be brewing. Meanwhile, we met with the leaders of a totalitarian country which not only had a fully functioning nuclear program, but had detonated a nuclear weapon, and didn't even publicly consider military action against this country?

This whole situation proves that this administration knows absolutely nothing about foreign policy. And while I'm glad things worked out with North Korea without having to beat the war drums, I feel as if this is an absolute travesty when you look at how we're handling Iran. This is really hypocrisy at its best.

Holy christ.

I was going to go at length into Kels post but you've quelled my torent man.

i thought you were on the other side of this from previous exchanges with you about Iran. i have to now re-evaluate my judging software. this crap is out of date!

all i will add is... a little knowledge on the history of Iranian politics directly explains why they have a small problem in dealing with the united states and other western nations.

stomping around like some detached overlord, without reguard for the past, is simply going to further the problems we face. the reason why its easier in North Korea...

we understand them from being over there since the Korean War. thats the only kind of diplomatic relationship some people will allow... a long drawn out version of Osmosis through years of war. im against going through this convoluted process with Iran and Iraq like we did with vietnam and Korea. lets grow up as a country shall we?

for christ sakes... its all the same in the end. how about we try to actively understand them and then act. lets get out of this stupid cycle. it has nothing to do with region, and everything to do with how we have been running this derigible since world war 2

*slow clap* Well said, gents.

jag

[Sandman138]

We have tried diplomacy with Iraq, North Korea and Iran. North Korea is the only one that it was effective with. Simple as that. Diplomacy is, and has always been, the first, second and third option.

If your definition of diplomacy is telling somebody to concede to your demands before you give them the honer of negotiating with them then sure, we have tried diplomacy.

[StorminNorman]

And I'm tired of the word "Liberal" being used as a bad word, But that's for another thread.


Now lets get a few things straight. I didn't call HIM a "Neo-con" What I said was his "Neo-con circles" Implying that he knows some or is friends with neo-con.

The reason I said that is because StorminNorman has said that his father was a Republican Party political adviser and that they know people that are neo-cons, Namely Karl Rove, Whom Norman's father appointed to his first major Republican Party position, and Charlie Black, The man who said that McCain would benefit from another terrorist attack.

Now, Does knowing neo-cons like Charlie Black and Karl Rove make you a neo-con? You tell me. All I know is that Norman knows a few of them thus the reason I used the phrase "Neo-con circles". Was it "appropriate" to use the term "Neo-con circles"? Well considering all that I posted above, I'd say yes, It was "appropriate" to imply that he knows some neo-cons.:yay:

Wait...since when does "my father knows..." and "I know" become the same thing?

As I have stated in another thread, my best friend is an admitted socialist, a vegetarian and an environmentalist. Almost all of my own friends who have an interest in politics range from moderate to liberal. I don't have "neo-con" circles.

[StorminNorman]

If your definition of diplomacy is telling somebody to concede to your demands before you give them the honer of negotiating with them then sure, we have tried diplomacy.

I would say that our diplomacy with Iraq was possibly inadequate - but, at the time, it would of been against the interest of the people to of stalled longer. Iraq is tricky situation simply because we had reason to attack Iraq for years. They had broken their cease fire arrangements with the United States and the UN. This combined with (what I still believe) was our government's belief that Saddam really did have WMD's led to our diplomacy efforts to be less than they have been with Iran and far less than North Korea.

To be fair, though, the United States DID try some (though, as I have stated, limited) diplomatic talk with Iraq and tried to work through the UN. Saddam, as he stated in prison, was dedicated to not admit he did not have WMD's (feeling he needed the threat for political standing with Iran). Those stances from both sides of the conflict (US and Iraq) being as it were, I do not think war in Iraq was unavoidable.

That being said I think due to our position in the world with conflicts ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will try longer than normal diplomatic talks with Iran. We do not have the ability to stage an assault on Iran and the US knows this. This talk of bombing and air strikes before Bush is gone is little more than smoke being thrown in the air.

Or at least, that is my view on it. The accuracy of which is certainly arguable.

[UA-Archangel]

Kim Jong-il may be dead.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4692472.ece


Is Kim Jong-il for real? The question has baffled foreign intelligence agencies for years but now a veteran Japanese expert on North Korea says the “dear leader” is actually dead – and his role is played by a double.
The expert says Kim died of diabetes in 2003 and world leaders including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Hu Jintao of China have been negotiating with an impostor.

He believes that Kim, fearing assassination, had groomed up to four lookalikes to act as substitutes at public events. One underwent plastic surgery to make his appearance more convincing. Now, the expert claims, the actors are brought on stage whenever required to persuade the masses that Kim is alive.

The author has been derided by rival analysts of the hermetic communist state. Yet so few facts are known about North Korea’s ruling dynasty that some of the strange things reported in Professor Toshimitsu Shigemura’s bestselling book cannot be readily explained.

“Scholars don’t trust my reasoning but intelligence people see the possibility that it will turn out to be accurate,” he said. “I have identified and pinned down every source.”

The book, The True Character of Kim Jong-il, cites sources from inside North Korea and from the intelligence services of Japan and South Korea.

One of its principal claims is that a voiceprint analysis of Kim’s speech at a 2004 meeting with Junichiro Koizumi, then the Japanese prime minister, did not match an authenticated earlier recording.

His book traces Kim’s supposed demise to autumn 2003 when he vanished for about 42 days. Most analysts put this down to mourning for one of his wives, a power struggle inside the Kim dynasty or fear of an American strike.

Kim’s poor health has been the subject of speculation for decades. The professor’s contribution is to cite Russian and Chinese sources saying he had diabetes and illnesses of the heart, liver and lungs, with depression thrown in.

There have been persistent reports that a stand-in appears for Kim at military parades and he is notoriously reclusive. He did not appear in public to receive the Olympic torch in Pyongyang on April 28.

The professor argues that no substantive policy decisions have been taken since North Korea joined nuclear disarmament talks in 2003.

South Korean analysts who attended two summits with Kim (before and after his supposed death) reported that he had indeed changed appearance. But that was because he had lost weight, quit smoking, given up cognac in favour of red bordeaux and coaxed the rest of the politburo onto a health kick.

[ManofmyWord]

Hmmm.

Why go through all that? Why keep pretending he's alive?

[Gilpesh]

That's insane....

Why does North Korea love that movie Dave?

[Yerzrinot]

Hmmm.

Why go through all that? Why keep pretending he's alive?

Because much like his father Kim Il-Sung he's viewed as almost a demi-god.

[C.F. Kane]

This seems more than a bit vague...

What are the sources he's citing?

[UA-Archangel]

Hmmm.

Why go through all that? Why keep pretending he's alive?

The elites in that country wouldn't be living quite the level of luxury that they would if it was acknowledged he had died.

Also, there is probably the fear of the unknown.

[jaguarr]

This is just like "Moon Over Parador" with Richard Dreyfus.....only more...Asian. :hehe:

jag

[SentinelMind]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/us.north.korea/index.html

[The Senator]

That's good.

Too bad North Korea never sponsored terrorist activities in the first place, and this terror list is just another jingoistic attempt to point fingers at countries we don't like.

But good move by the Bush administration none the less.

[Matt]

Why would anyone have even ever believed that North Korea was funding Islamic extremists?

[The Senator]

Why would anyone have even ever believed that North Korea was funding Islamic extremists?

I believe North Korea was put on the terror list because that country had a nuclear program and was on its way to developing nuclear weapons.

Because the United States is adamantly against countries with nuclear programs and the ability to make nuclear weapons, since we don't have any nuclear reactors or fissile weapons here.

Oh wait...

[Hobgoblin]

Why would anyone have even ever believed that North Korea was funding Islamic extremists?

As I understand it, they werent so much actively seeking to fund Islamic extremists, as much as they would sell the tech to whoever was willing to pay. That was enough to make W jumpy.

I'm surprised that they are now off the list. Arent the North Koreans trying to rebuild the reactor?

EDIT: My info must be old. That story was published over a month ago.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/03/asia/korea.php

[The Senator]

I'm surprised that they are now off the list. Arent the North Koreans trying to rebuild the reactor?

Why shouldn't they be able to? They should have just as much a right to harness nuclear energy as Western nations do. Not to mention, if they were able to harness such power, that would greatly reduce their energy expenditures, considering they do not have access to a wide array of energy technologies.

The only thing which needs to be monitored is whether their nuclear program expands to nuclear proliferation, once again. But I believe that is doubtful considering the economic impact they faced following global sanctions from trade partners such as China and Russia.

[Hobgoblin]

Why shouldn't they be able to? They should have just as much a right to harness nuclear energy as Western nations do. Not to mention, if they were able to harness such power, that would greatly reduce their energy expenditures, considering they do not have access to a wide array of energy technologies.

The only thing which needs to be monitored is whether their nuclear program expands to nuclear proliferation, once again. But I believe that is doubtful considering the economic impact they faced following global sanctions from trade partners such as China and Russia.
Dont get me wrong. I dont care if another country wants to build a reactor for energy purposes. But as you said, I just hope it doesnt become used for nuclear proliferation.

[Yerzrinot]

North Korea is isolationist. Why on Earth would they sponsor terrorists?

[Tigerking]

Amazin what DIPLOMACY does

[The Senator]

Amazin what DIPLOMACY does

Yeah, it's very interesting, except North Korea never sponsored terrorism or terrorist affiliates.

So they never should have been on this so-called "terror list" at all.

[Tigerking]

Yeah, it's very interesting, except North Korea never sponsored terrorism or terrorist affiliates.

So they never should have been on this so-called "terror list" at all.

True but I hope we can use the lesson from here to work with Iran

[The Senator]

True but I hope we can use the lesson from here to work with Iran

And that lesson is, "turn cold shoulder on [country] until it develops nuclear weapons and you have no choice but to meet with them to avoid a global catastrophe."

Sounds like a plan :dry:

[Tigerking]

And that lesson is, "turn cold shoulder on [country] until it develops nuclear weapons and you have no choice but to meet with them to avoid a global catastrophe."

Sounds like a plan :dry:

no i didnt mean that, I meant finally opening talks because they do yield results.

[CaptainClown]

http://offtopic.kimcm.dk/Images/KoreaByNight.jpgDoes that look like a country that sponsors Islamic terrorism? Come on...

[ShadowBoxing]

I believe North Korea was put on the terror list because that country had a nuclear program and was on its way to developing nuclear weapons.

Because the United States is adamantly against countries with nuclear programs and the ability to make nuclear weapons, since we don't have any nuclear reactors or fissile weapons here.

Oh wait...
Remember, Bush also hates half of America (the Angry Left), so they're the ones who are responsible for our nuclear program. I'm looking at you...Truman.

[The Senator]

Remember, Bush also hates half of America (the Angry Left), so they're the ones who are responsible for our nuclear program. I'm looking at you...Truman.

And who is at the epicenter of the angry left?

John McCain. He wants to build 45 new nuclear plants in this country.

He should be put on the terror list.

[ShadowBoxing]

And who is at the epicenter of the angry left?

John McCain. He wants to build 45 new nuclear plants in this country.

He should be put on the terror list.
Palin is big on the nuclear energy too: Terror List

also Witches go on the terror list.

[The Senator]

Palin is big on the nuclear energy too: Terror List

also Witches go on the terror list.

You are making a pretty bold accusation there. We can't know she's a witch unless we hogtie her and throw her into a swimming pool, where she'll float, or throw her off a cliff and onto a sheet of glacial ice, where she'll bounce. And since she hasn't been legally tried yet, we cannot make such assumptions.

[CaptainClown]

You are making a pretty bold accusation there. We can't know she's a witch unless we hogtie her and throw her into a swimming pool, where she'll float, or throw her off a cliff and onto a sheet of glacial ice, where she'll bounce. And since she hasn't been legally tried yet, we cannot make such assumptions.
she turned me into a newt!

[The Senator]

she turned me into a newt!

Well she confirmed my homosexuality! :cmad:

[ShadowBoxing]

she turned me into a newt!
You don't look like a newt.

[CaptainClown]

You don't look like a newt.
I got better...

[ShadowBoxing]

I got better...
Okay, well we can't drown her...so if Witches burn because they are made of wood, what else does wood do?

[CaptainClown]

we could build a bridge out of her?

float?

[The Senator]

Okay, well we can't drown her...so if Witches burn because they are made of wood, what else does wood do?

Perhaps she's really a vampire, and we should instead stab her in the heart with a wooden stake?

[ShadowBoxing]

we could build a bridge out of her?

float?
Excellent, floats. Now, what else can float?

[CaptainClown]

Excellent, floats. Now, what else can float?
Bread.
Apples.
Very small rocks.
Cider
Gravy
Cherries
mudd
churches.

LEAD!! Lead!!

[ShadowBoxing]

Bread.
Apples.
Very small rocks.
Cider
Gravy
Cherries
mudd
churches.

LEAD!! Lead!!
A duck...so logically, if she weighs the same as a duck, she is a Witch.

[jaguarr]

Perhaps she's really a vampire, and we should instead stab her in the heart with a wooden stake?

You have to also remove the head of a vampire and bury it far from the body if you want to make sure it stays inanimate. Just saying. :o

jag

[ManofmyWord]

From Aol.

http://news.aol.com/article/recent-kim-jong-il-photo-called-a-fake/242065

The pixels are very displaced in the Group picture. With 3 sons and none named Heir, we could have some problems with North Korea if he dies.

[souvlaki]

From Aol.

http://news.aol.com/article/recent-kim-jong-il-photo-called-a-fake/242065

The pixels are very displaced in the Group picture. With 3 sons and none named Heir, we could have some problems with North Korea if he dies.

I must say, it's bizarre thinking about the lengths the North Korean government may even be going through to cover up his death/illness. If it were any other country with any other leader I'd dismiss it as some crazy conspiracy theory. After looking at the photo though I wouldn't be shocked. Looked doctored to me.

[ManofmyWord]

Yeah, and the fact that they are going through this much trouble just shows how far they may go to protect his legacy.

[dnno1]

Which one of the guys at the Hype manipped that photo?

[StorminNorman]

NKorea launches rocket, defying world pressure

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea defiantly carried out a provocative rocket launch Sunday that the U.S., Japan and other nations suspect was a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology. Liftoff took place at 11:30 a.m. (0230GMT) Sunday from the coastal Musudan-ri launch pad in northeastern North Korea, the South Korean and U.S. governments said. The multistage rocket hurtled toward the Pacific, reaching Japanese airspace within seven minutes, but no debris appeared to hit its territory, officials in Tokyo said.
The U.N. Security Council approved an emergency session for Sunday afternoon in New York, following a request from Japan that came minutes after the launch.
The South Koreans called it "reckless," the Americans "provocative," and Japan said it strongly protested the launch.
The launch was a bold act of defiance against President Barack Obama, Japanese leader Taro Aso, Hu Jintao of China and others who pressed Pyongyang in the days leading up to liftoff to call off a launch they said would threaten peace and stability in Northeast Asia.
South Korea's presidential Blue House said the launch poses a "serious threat" to stability on the Korean peninsula and that it would respond to the provocation "sternly and resolutely." President Lee Myung-bak ordered the military to remain on alert, the Blue House said.
"We cannot contain our disappointment and regret over North Korea's reckless act," presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan told reporters Sunday. He said the launch of the long-range rocket "poses a serious threat to security on the Korean peninsula and the world."
North Korea claims its aim is to send an experimental communications satellite into orbit in a peaceful bid to develop its space program.
The U.S., South Korea, Japan and others suspect the launch is a guise for testing the regime's long-range missile technology — one step toward eventually mounting a nuclear weapon on a missile capable of reaching Alaska and beyond.
They contend the launch violates a 2006 resolution barring the regime from ballistic missile activity.
Obama said Friday the launch would be a "provocative" move with consequences. State Department spokesman Fred Lash said late Saturday in Washington that the U.S. will "take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that it cannot threaten the safety and security of other countries with impunity."
He called the launch a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, adopted five days after North Korea carried out a nuclear weapons test in 2006.
Japan's U.N. mission has asked for a meeting of the 15-nation council Sunday, spokesman Yutaka Arima said. Mexico's mission to the United Nations set the meeting for 3 p.m. EDT (1900 GMT), spokesman Marco Morales said. Mexico holds the 15-nation council's presidency this month.
U.N. diplomats already have begun discussing ways to affirm existing sanctions on North Korea against its nuclear program and long-range missile tests.
In Japan, chief Cabinet spokesman Takeo Kawamura said it was not immediately clear if the rocket was mounted with a satellite as North Korea has claimed.
North Korea calls its "space launch vehicle" Unha-2, but the rocket is better known to the outside world as the Taepodong-2, a long-range missile that can be mounted with a satellite or nuclear armament.
"Even if a satellite was launched, we see this as a ballistic missile test and we think this matter should be taken to the United Nations Security Council," Kawamura said. "We are highly concerned by this matter."
"We strongly protest this launch," he said.
The first stage of the rocket dropped about 175 miles (280 kilometers) off the western coast of Akita into the waters between Japan and the Korean peninsula. The second stage was to land in the Pacific at a spot about 790 miles (1,270 kilometers) off Japan's northeastern coast, a Defense Ministry spokeswoman said in Tokyo.
Japan said it would convene a security panel meeting later in the day to discuss what further measures can be taken. Kawamura said Japan would work closely with Washington and with the U.N.
"Our primary concern is to confirm safety and gather information," Aso told a news conference at his Tokyo office Sunday.
North Korea shocked Japan in 1998 when it launched a missile over Japan's main island. Japan has since spent billions of dollars on developing a missile shield with the United States and has launched a series of spy satellites primarily to watch developments in North Korea.
Japan had threatened to shoot down any debris from the rocket if the launch went wrong, and positioned batteries of interceptor missiles on its coast and radar-equipped ships off its northern seas to monitor the launch.
No attempt at interception was made since no debris fell onto its territory, a ministry spokeswoman said, speaking on condition of anonymity, citing department rules.

Obama now has his first national security threat...how will he respond?

[hippie_hunter]

Either Obama or the Japanese should have shot that rocket down IMO and let them know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

[StorminNorman]

Obama is too weak and the Japanese were too busy watching anime.

[Matt]

Scary ****. H_H is right. It should've been shot down.

Here is an interesting question. While Hussein did not have WMDs, we know for a fact he was trying to obtain them. What if we did not intervene and he had succeeded? We know this man has used biological weapons (on his own people, no less) , what if he got a bomb had we not taken him out of power? Would we be dealing with a Middle East version of this today? If so, does that make the Iraq War justifiable? Not saying the Iraq war was right, I still disagree with it. Just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

[Zar25]

Obama is too weak and the Japanese were too busy watching anime.

How was Obama too weak ? :huh: Do we even have the capabilty to shoot that missile down on our own ? Yopu're jumping to absurd conclusions mate. Nice diss of the Japanese btw. Don't they have superior technology to us ? :whatever:

Scary ****. H_H is right. It should've been shot down.

Here is an interesting question. While Hussein did not have WMDs, we know for a fact he was trying to obtain them. What if we did not intervene and he had succeeded? We know this man has used biological weapons (on his own people, no less) , what if he got a bomb had we not taken him out of power? Would we be dealing with a Middle East version of this today? If so, does that make the Iraq War justifiable? Not saying the Iraq war was right, I still disagree with it. Just playing devil's advocate, so to speak.

It is an interesting question. It would make the Iraq war more justifiable if the purpose was to remove the REAL threat of WMD but since we invaded for oil and there was no WMDs nor was there any capability of producing them, the war was unjustified.

However by following the logic of your argument, I believe Iran would be Saddam's first target and Iran would quickly react in swift retaliation. That would be the first shot I think. Saddam would take out immediate threats first. Iran would be a logical target right there.

[Kelly]

How was Obama too weak ? :huh: Do we even have the capabilty to shoot that missile down on our own ? Yopu're jumping to absurd conclusions mate. Nice diss of the Japanese btw. Don't they have superior technology to us ? :whatever:

That is hysterical....and the answer is a definite, yes.

Do I think we needed to shoot it down? No......unless it was headed for Hawaii or Alaska. Which at best was only a theory. But, a very, very distinct, specific and harsh reprimand needs to be made by the UN, all European countries individually, the US, Japan, China, and Russia. That won't happen, but they should.

Everyone needs to watch ABC this morning Ambassador Rice will be speaking on all of this....

It is an interesting question. It would make the Iraq war more justifiable if the purpose was to remove the REAL threat of WMD but since we invaded for oil and there was no WMDs nor was there any capability of producing them, the war was unjustified. I'm not even going to get into that again......debated into a black hole and looking backwards, not forward.

However by following the logic of your argument, I believe Iran would be Saddam's first target and Iran would quickly react in swift retaliation. That would be the first shot I think. Saddam would take out immediate threats first. Iran would be a logical target right there.

Saddam would have taken out either Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, the latter 2 because of oil. The first simply to get kudos from the other Muslim countries, kind of the way he tried to do during the Persian Gulf war when he suddenly started praying 5 times a day to Allah.

[Kelly]

Ambassador Rice is on right now on "This Week".....she is representing the US iny the Emergency Security Council meeting later on today.

US feels that this launch was a violation of the 2006 Resolution, and it merits a strong UN response.



BTW, N. Korea says that it made it into orbit, the US says that it fell into the Pacific Ocean.

[The Major]

That is hysterical....and the answer is a definite, yes.

Do I think we needed to shoot it down? No......unless it was headed for Hawaii or Alaska. Which at best was only a theory. But, a very, very distinct, specific and harsh reprimand needs to be made by the UN, all European countries individually, the US, Japan, China, and Russia. That won't happen, but they should.

Everyone needs to watch ABC this morning Ambassador Rice will be speaking on all of this....

Agreed.

I'm not even going to get into that again......debated into a black hole and looking backwards, not forward.

We can only go forward by learning from the past.

[Kelly]

Agreed.



We can only go forward by learning from the past.

Sure, but visiting the past on a constant basis and living there gets you nowhere...."moving" forward is when evolution can freely flow....

[Zar25]

That is hysterical....and the answer is a definite, yes.

Hee. :woot: My mistake. Maybe I should have asked - do we have the authority to shoot that down ?


Saddam would have taken out either Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, the latter 2 because of oil. The first simply to get kudos from the other Muslim countries, kind of the way he tried to do during the Persian Gulf war when he suddenly started praying 5 times a day to Allah.


If he wanted oil I believe he would take out whoever's nearest.Taking out a country is one thing, taking the oil is another. Shooting straight for Israel though is pretty much a bad idea unless they've planned five steps ahead of time.

[The Major]

Sure, but visiting the past on a constant basis

It's only constant because the recent past is still recent and the events that occurs are relevant when discussing similar events.

and living there gets you nowhere....
I disagree. The more we have a bad thing ingrained into our consciousness the easier it is not to repeat mistakes.

"moving" forward is when evolution can freely flow....
Evolution can only be done when the burdens of a species are discarded forever. We aren't there yet with the previous administration. The wounds are fresh and they are not healed.

[hippie_hunter]

How was Obama too weak ? :huh:
Because the North Korean government was testing the Obama Administration and the Japanese to see if they would do anything about it. They both failed miserably. Harsh reprimands won't work. Sanctions won't work. Unlike Venezuela or Cuba which were never a threat to begin with or Iran which has some form of rationality; North Korea can't be talked to.

Kim Jong Il would fit the profile of a stereotypical James Bond villain, and if they could they'd let the world burn.

Do we even have the capabilty to shoot that missile down on our own ? Yopu're jumping to absurd conclusions mate.
Yes we can shoot missiles down. That's why Obama sent to AEGIS equipped battleships and the Japanese prepared to shoot the thing if it entered Japanese territory.

Nice diss of the Japanese btw. Don't they have superior technology to us ? :whatever:
No the Japanese don't have superior military technology. The United States by far is the most advanced military when it comes to technology. There is no need for Japan to develop incredibly high end military technology when it is against their constitution to wage an aggressive war.

It is an interesting question. It would make the Iraq war more justifiable if the purpose was to remove the REAL threat of WMD but since we invaded for oil and there was no WMDs nor was there any capability of producing them, the war was unjustified.
Even though I'm opposed to the Iraq War, to quote Mego Thor "That art debatable." There were traces of equipment found that showed that Iraq's WMD program could have been started back up at any time and Saddam himself admitted that the reason why he had the intelligence community fooled intentionally into thinking that he might have had WMDs so that Iran wouldn't dare attack him because he was in an incredibly weakened position after the Persian Gulf War. He expected the United States to occasionally respond in the manner that Bill Clinton did in Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and in Operation Desert Fox in 1998, not actually overthrow him.

Even though I do agree with you that the Iraq War was unjustified, there was good reason to believe that there was a REAL WMD threat from the Baathist regime in Iraq.

However by following the logic of your argument, I believe Iran would be Saddam's first target and Iran would quickly react in swift retaliation. That would be the first shot I think. Saddam would take out immediate threats first. Iran would be a logical target right there.
Agreed.

[StorminNorman]

US feels that this launch was a violation of the 2006 Resolution, and it merits a strong UN response.

:lmao: That's an oxymoron.

[Kelly]

:lmao: That's an oxymoron.


lmao, I was wondering who was going to catch that......:hehe:

But, I worded it EXACTLY the way it was given....

[hippie_hunter]

Saddam would have taken out either Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, the latter 2 because of oil. The first simply to get kudos from the other Muslim countries, kind of the way he tried to do during the Persian Gulf war when he suddenly started praying 5 times a day to Allah.

Actually he's right, Saddam would have attacked Iran first. Knowing that he was in a weakened position, if he had the capabilities he would have attacked Iran first. He feared the influence of Iran and the capabilities the Iranian military has. And back when he was powerful, they fought him at a stalemate.

Attacking Israel on the other hand is downright stupid and suicidal. When he attacked Israel back in the Persian Gulf War and started praying to Allah 5 times a day, Arabs didn't fall for it. Saddam was a secularist first and foremost and saw through his games. After being embarrassingly defeated again and again and again and again over and over, no legitimate Arab government is going to preemptively attack Israel. They have one of the best trained armies in the world and have the technological backing of the United States. There is absolutely no benefit at all in attacking Israel unless you want to be humiliated before the global community for your stupidity.

He would probably try and attack Kuwait to regain it's territory. But I can't see him attacking Saudi Arabia without massive preparations.

[StorminNorman]

Saddams fear of Iran is why our intell was so bad in Iraq :(

[Kelly]

And all of what you are saying, COULD have been true, very well might have been......if we were talking of a sane man. I think in his beginnings he was.......but I think as he grew in power, his sanity decreased. He was a scary SOB in the late 90's.

[hippie_hunter]

And all of what you are saying, COULD have been true, very well might have been......if we were talking of a sane man. I think in his beginnings he was.......but I think as he grew in power, his sanity decreased. He was a scary SOB in the late 90's.

Saddam was a ruthless man, but he wasn't insane. His fear of Iran were for very good reasons and even though he knew it was a gamble there was good reason to believe that the United States wouldn't overthrow him after they didn't overthrow him after the Persian Gulf War.

[StorminNorman]

He underestimated the size of Bush's cowboy hat.

[Kelly]

Saddam was a ruthless man, but he wasn't insane. His fear of Iran were for very good reasons and even though he knew it was a gamble there was good reason to believe that the United States wouldn't overthrow him after they didn't overthrow him after the Persian Gulf War.


The US didn't go in after the Persian Gulf because the way that Bush got a unilateral agreement with European nations was because his mandate stopped at that point. And, he wasn't necessarily insane then.....stupid sure....

[Cosmic]

BLAME OBAMA!!! :mad:

Hippie: what would you have the US and Japan do differently? Just curious.

I think they're doing the right thing. The launch, while unfortuante for diplomacy, does provide us with useful military intel on a level which spies and other insiders obviously can seldom reach. Just because we can shoot down their test missiles doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It would just make a tense situation significantly much more tense, without anything substantial to be gained, IMO.

[The Major]

edit

[Kelly]

BLAME OBAMA!!! :mad:

Hippie: what would you have the US and Japan do differently? Just curious.

I think they're doing the right thing. The launch, while unfortuante for diplomacy, does provide us with useful military intel on a level which spies and other insiders obviously can seldom reach. Just because we can shoot down their test missiles doesn't necessarily mean that we should. It would just make a tense situation significantly much more tense, without anything substantial to be gained, IMO.

He made it clear in his first post about this situation.....he felt that either Japan or the US should have blown the thing out of the sky once it was launched. Which either military could have done...

Either Obama or the Japanese should have shot that rocket down IMO and let them know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

[The Major]

He made it clear in his first post about this situation.....he felt that either Japan or the US should have blown the thing out of the sky once it was launched. Which either military could have done...
Which could caused a new war with North Korea. At a time when we're busy fighting al queda in Pakistan and Afganistan and our economy is in shambles. :whatever:

[StorminNorman]

North Korea isn't in a position for war.

Like at all.

[The Major]

North Korea isn't in a position for war.

Like at all.
It can attack South Korea at any time. It's also relying on foreign nations to invade it IMO.

[Kelly]

Which could caused a new war with North Korea. At a time when we're busy fighting al queda in Pakistan and Afganistan and our economy is in shambles. :whatever:


N. Korea isn't going to war with anyone....

Here is the thing, even it had been a sattelite (hello electronic pulse) this has been on the drawing table since 1958, it is certainly not out of the realm of thinking. So for anyone to even think this was just a satellite is just STUPID.

Also, from Obama, if this rocket is launched there will strong action (those are HIS WORDS) .... ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ok. waiting........ oh, another UN Resolution.....that'll show'um.

[Excel]

I dont know. Shooting down is def. the boss act, however it could also start something directly between us and NK...when we could just let Japan take care of it.

[Kelly]

It can attack South Korea at any time. It's also relying on foreign nations to invade it IMO.


If they were going to attack S. Korea they would have done it long before now.

The UN Resolutions have not worked...................when are people going to figure this out. THEY DON'T WORK. Rwanda? no, Iraq? no, Iran? no, Sudan? no, Dem. Rep. of Congo? no,Eritrea? no, Ethiopia? no, Liberia? sort of, N. Korea? no....


I'm seeing a pattern here......

[hippie_hunter]

Which could caused a new war with North Korea. At a time when we're busy fighting al queda in Pakistan and Afganistan and our economy is in shambles. :whatever:

|
|
|
\/


North Korea isn't in a position for war.

Like at all.

Blowing up a missile isn't going to launch a war. Especially when the entire international community is telling North Korea "Hey! Don't launch that ****ing missile!" This was a ploy by the regime in North Korea to see how we would back that statement up and we didn't. Especially when it should have been the United States or Japan backing it up.

[The Major]

|
|
|
\/




Blowing up a missile isn't going to launch a war. Especially when the entire international community is telling North Korea "Hey! Don't launch that ****ing missile!" This was a ploy by the regime in North Korea to see how we would back that statement up and we didn't. Especially when it should have been the United States or Japan backing it up.
How do you think NK is going to react to America or Japan blowing up the missile? That's the tipping point which could start a war. America would go to war over SK getting invaded IMO. They are our allies, after all.

[StorminNorman]

No guys, its cool. The UN is going to send Ill a nasty letter and that will show North Korea whose boss. Right?

[Cosmic]

He made it clear in his first post about this situation.....he felt that either Japan or the US should have blown the thing out of the sky once it was launched. Which either military could have done...

My bad! Anyways, shooting the missile down would've been less useful to us than the intel we get from seeing where and how far it goes. The incident also creates an opportunity to put the ball in China's (and Russia's) court. If NK is going to make threats and provocations, then their friendly neighbors might have a harder time justifying their support.

[Kelly]

All we are going to do is move the status quo in the United Nations....

It WAS, keep these countries from "getting" nuclear capability....

It is NOW, keep these countries from "using" their nuclear capability....

*shakes head* the UN is a useless.

[Kelly]

My bad! Anyways, shooting the missile down would've been less useful to us than the intel we get from seeing where and how far it goes. The incident also creates an opportunity to put the ball in China's (and Russia's) court. If NK is going to make threats and provocations, then their friendly neighbors might have a harder time justifying their support.


China is not going to go for anything more than another resolution, they don't even want more sanctions.

[Cosmic]

Maybe for now, that's all that really needs to be done. Obama is in the process of demonstrating that the USA is shifting away from the Bush Jr. style of "gung-ho" diplomacy. Taking direct military action against what is technically a civilian launch would be a step back from that, IMO.

[Kelly]

Maybe for now, that's all that really needs to be done. Obama is in the process of demonstrating that the USA is shifting away from the Bush Jr. style of "gung-ho" diplomacy. Taking direct military action against what is technically a civilian launch would be a step back from that, IMO.

Well guess what...

Security Council Session has ended: No Action will be taken at this time.



Wow, I'm so surprised....

[Kelly]

Maybe for now, that's all that really needs to be done. Obama is in the process of demonstrating that the USA is shifting away from the Bush Jr. style of "gung-ho" diplomacy. Taking direct military action against what is technically a civilian launch would be a step back from that, IMO.

Technically, they were not supposed to launch....ANYTHING. Why? because they will not allow people in to make sure that they are not developing Nuclear weapons.....

[StorminNorman]

Maybe for now, that's all that really needs to be done. Obama is in the process of demonstrating that the USA is shifting away from the Bush Jr. style of "gung-ho" diplomacy. Taking direct military action against what is technically a civilian launch would be a step back from that, IMO.

And by doing so he has shown that he isn't willing to enforce sanctions against countries - making such sanctions even more irrelevant than they already are. The lack of action was an act of weakness. Obama blinked.

[StorminNorman]

All we are going to do is move the status quo in the United Nations....

It WAS, keep these countries from "getting" nuclear capability....

It is NOW, keep these countries from "using" their nuclear capability....

*shakes head* the UN is a useless.

And Obama wants to give them the ability to tax Americans :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :notfunny: :lmao:

[hippie_hunter]

How do you think NK is going to react to America or Japan blowing up the missile? That's the tipping point which could start a war. America would go to war over SK getting invaded IMO. They are our allies, after all.

Mounting a North Korean invasion of South Korea isn't anywhere as easy as you think it is:

1. You can't just send an army across the border. The Korean DMZ is the most heavily armed border in the world. You have highly trained South Korean and American military along with thousands of mines. An invasion attempt to cross the border will result in massive damage to the invading army due to mine explosions and superior technology from the United States and South Korea.

2. South Korea possesses Patriot Missile technology which has a very high success rate in shooting down missiles (100% in Operation Iraqi Freedom).

3. The Korean People's Air Force has only a limited capacity to conduct operations against South Korea and most of their inventory is filled with obsolete fighters.

4. The Korean People's Navy's capabilities are pathetic.

So when you take a look at those factors, North Korea retaliating with war over a missile, that has been condemned by almost every major power in the world, being shot down outside of North Korean airspace is rather far fetched.

[hippie_hunter]

China is not going to go for anything more than another resolution, they don't even want more sanctions.

Understandable though. More sanctions will result in more refugees for China to deal with.

[The Major]

Mounting a North Korean invasion of South Korea isn't anywhere as easy as you think it is:

1. You can't just send an army across the border. The Korean DMZ is the most heavily armed border in the world. You have highly trained South Korean and American military along with thousands of mines. An invasion attempt to cross the border will result in massive damage to the invading army due to mine explosions and superior technology from the United States and South Korea.

2. South Korea possesses Patriot Missile technology which has a very high success rate in shooting down missiles (100% in Operation Iraqi Freedom).

3. The Korean People's Air Force has only a limited capacity to conduct operations against South Korea and most of their inventory is filled with obsolete fighters.

4. The Korean People's Navy's capabilities are pathetic.

So when you take a look at those factors, North Korea retaliating with war over a missile, that has been condemned by almost every major power in the world, being shot down outside of North Korean airspace is rather far fetched.
That's good to hear. :up:

[Kelly]

I have friends that are stationed in North Korea....North Korea wouldn't invade by land......at least.

But, damn that dude is crazy. Who knows what he would try to do.

[StorminNorman]

Has anyone seen "that dude" since he went all strokey? I don't think he is at the wheel anymore. Not that it really makes any difference.

[The Major]

Has anyone seen "that dude" since he went all strokey?
He had a stroke recently. Wouldn't put it past NK to use decoys since then, whether he's dead or recovering in a bunker.

I don't think he is at the wheel anymore. Not that it really makes any difference.
Agreed.

[Kelly]

Has anyone seen "that dude" since he went all strokey? I don't think he is at the wheel anymore. Not that it really makes any difference.

They were just talking about that on Fox. They have a reporter in S. Korea covering this, he said that he's very much still in power. Not sure what that means...

[StorminNorman]

They were just talking about that on Fox. They have a reporter in S. Korea covering this, he said that he's very much still in power. Not sure what that means...

Unless we have seen pictures of Ill I don't know how they can say that with any certainty. I mean North Korea went from a country that seemed to be abiding with the six party talks, urgently trying to get off the states that sponsor terror list to defiant nation launching an internationally illegal satellite pretty quickly.

[Cosmic]

Technically, they were not supposed to launch....ANYTHING. Why? because they will not allow people in to make sure that they are not developing Nuclear weapons.....

Yes, that's true. What do you want to do, kick their asses? Even if we could without starting a world war, it wouldn't be worth it. The UN sucks, but if there's a diplomatic solution at the end of this, then it's better for us if we at least attempt to use the systems that are in place. In the meantime, NK is not going to blow anybody up, except for maybe themselves.

And by doing so he has shown that he isn't willing to enforce sanctions against countries - making such sanctions even more irrelevant than they already are. The lack of action was an act of weakness. Obama blinked.

OMG the terrorists are winning! Where's Dubya when we need him? :p

[StorminNorman]

Yes, that's true. What do you want to do, kick their asses? Even if we could without starting a world war, it wouldn't be worth it. The UN sucks, but if there's a diplomatic solution at the end of this, then it's better for us if we at least attempt to use the systems that are in place. In the meantime, NK is not going to blow anybody up, except for maybe themselves.

A big reason for this launch was to impress diplomats from Iran, Venezuela and the other usual so they would buy them. So NK isn't simply the only country that is helped by this.

Also yes, I did want us to kick their asses. That's exactly what I want. Like a child who constantly misbehaves to test his boundaries, I wanted a bare bottom spanking. With a lot more kaboom.

[hippie_hunter]

I have friends that are stationed in North Korea....North Korea wouldn't invade by land......at least.

But, damn that dude is crazy. Who knows what he would try to do.

It's actually kind of easy to think how their government thinks. North Korea is pretty much the epitome of a failed state because of their oppressive government. The goal of their government is survival of the regime, not protecting its people or anything like that. They're sort of a combination of stereotypical James Bond villain and Apokolips in the Justice League cartoon.

Because the country is pretty much a hellhole, their tool for survival is blackmail where we comply with their demands for oil, food, etc. in return they stop their nuclear/missile/whatever program. Every time the Western powers comply, so the government does so over and over and over.

And because survival is the sole goal of the North Korean government, they will not attack on account that a preemptive attack will result in the end of their regime. They will have no support from China which sees North Korea as an embarrassing step-cousin, or from Russia which would have no benefit from supporting them. And they will face the military might of the United States, South Korea, and others with the backing of the international community.

Their actions are irrational. The North Korean leadership is crazy. But it's not that hard to look into their mindset.

[Cosmic]

Norm, you're joking, right?

[StorminNorman]

No. As Hippie pointed out, the mental attitude of the North Korean government is simple and immature. Its about survival not success and they have no allies in the region. This is not a case of North Korea being a hair away from announcing war (or at least anything that resembles it) and was mostly a test of the resolve of the Obama administration.

As such the Obama administration should of indicated that just because Bush is in Texas doesn't mean America lacks teeth.

Instead he has proven to be a President that will rely more on the UN than his military. Which makes every rogue nation smile.

[The Major]

It's actually kind of easy to think how their government thinks. North Korea is pretty much the epitome of a failed state because of their oppressive government. The goal of their government is survival of the regime, not protecting its people or anything like that. They're sort of a combination of stereotypical James Bond villain and Apokolips in the Justice League cartoon.

Because the country is pretty much a hellhole, their tool for survival is blackmail where we comply with their demands for oil, food, etc. in return they stop their nuclear/missile/whatever program. Every time the Western powers comply, so the government does so over and over and over.

And because survival is the sole goal of the North Korean government, they will not attack on account that a preemptive attack will result in the end of their regime. They will have no support from China which sees North Korea as an embarrassing step-cousin, or from Russia which would have no benefit from supporting them. And they will face the military might of the United States, South Korea, and others with the backing of the international community.

Their actions are irrational. The North Korean leadership is crazy. But it's not that hard to look into their mindset.
A few years back I watched a Christiane Amanpour documentary she did on North Korea. It was definitely eye opening. You nailed exactly how they think.

[Kelly]

Countries where the people have truly NEVER had freedom really of any kind, or those that have had several generations without freedom, have no idea how to live. Freedom is something we take for granted, and we wonder why is it that when people finally get power ie: Russia, Iraq, we wonder why the people can't seem to hold onl to it, or even know how to hold it. Well, its because its not something you hold on to, its a mindset.

I liken it to a man who has been in prison for 3/4ths of his life. He can get out, be totally free, even from parole, and yet he can't function, he actually has a desire to go back.

There are countries that are still at Stage 1 of civilization. Yes, they have buildings, roads, electricity, etc. But they do not have the mindset....that mindset is one of simple survival........not living.

This is where North Korea is....

[Cosmic]

No. As Hippie pointed out, the mental attitude of the North Korean government is simple and immature. Its about survival not success and they have no allies in the region. This is not a case of North Korea being a hair away from announcing war (or at least anything that resembles it) and was mostly a test of the resolve of the Obama administration.

As such the Obama administration should of indicated that just because Bush is in Texas doesn't mean America lacks teeth.

Instead he has proven to be a President that will rely more on the UN than his military. Which makes every rogue nation smile.

The military is there for when they are needed. In this case, all they're needed for is to standby and take detailed notes. I think some people are overblowing this situation. We're not on the verge of the next world war, NK is not going to invade SK or encourage Iran or anyone else to do something stupid. We're better off working multilaterally with other world powers, rather than immediately going in with guns blazing at an enemy that can't even feed his own population.

[StorminNorman]

The military is there for when they are needed. In this case, all they're needed for is to standby and take detailed notes. I think some people are overblowing this situation. We're not on the verge of the next world war, NK is not going to invade SK or encourage Iran or anyone else to do something stupid. We're better off working multilaterally with other world powers, rather than immediately going in with guns blazing at an enemy that can't even feed his own population.

I think the fact we are not on the verge of a new world war is exactly why America should of responded with a strong act against North Korea's defiance. If you are afraid of enforcing UN resolutions when there is no fear of escalation, then you are clearly not going to enforce resolutions when enforcement means possible war.

The lack of action here further displays why the UN is a farce.

[Kelly]

Had this truly had a chance of getting anywhere near the US, I could go with that SN, but Gates knew it couldn't....he knew it couldn't last week in every interview he gave. It was obvious.

We are not the UN's Security Council, we are not the police of the world.

We will know, if and when, they have something that could reach our shores.....Japan has to speak up for Japan, we cannot speak up for them.

[Gilpesh]

If so, does that make the Iraq War justifiable?
If I locked you in jail for the rest of your life because you were going to kill someone sometime in the future and I knew it, how would you answer that question? :o

[Bathead]

That would be my understanding, Kel, that we could only have shot it down without repercussions if it was directly heading for any place even remotely connected to us or our allies. I know we have the capability to determine exactly where and when such a missile would hit the second it was launched. If it didn't threaten us or our friends directly, why shoot it down? What right would we have to do so? To do so would have been nothing more than macho posturing, and would have accomplished nothing except solidfy in the minds of the rest of the world that we were again acting like the arrogant bullies they believe we are.

[Marx]

Either Obama or the Japanese should have shot that rocket down IMO and let them know that such behavior would not be tolerated.

I believe North Korea made it widely known that such an act would be taken as an act of war.

[hippie_hunter]

A few years back I watched a Christiane Amanpour documentary she did on North Korea. It was definitely eye opening. You nailed exactly how they think.

It's also why they're involved in narcotics, arm sales, piracy, smuggling, etc. They need the money so badly that they're even heavily involved in illegal black markets.

[hippie_hunter]

I believe North Korea made it widely known that such an act would be taken as an act of war.

And I beleive that the international community made it widely known that such a move by North Korea was intolerable and look at what happened. It's just talk.

Just because something is seen as an act of war, doesn't mean that a state of war is occurring. North Korea, a regime that is based solely on the government's survival, isn't going to go to war where the only result is the end of their regime.

[Marx]

And I beleive that the international community made it widely known that such a move by North Korea was intolerable and look at what happened. It's just talk.

Just because something is seen as an act of war, doesn't mean that a state of war is occurring. North Korea, a regime that is based solely on the government's survival, isn't going to go to war where the only result is the end of their regime.

North Korea is seeing how far they can push the boundary.

[hippie_hunter]

The military is there for when they are needed. In this case, all they're needed for is to standby and take detailed notes. I think some people are overblowing this situation. We're not on the verge of the next world war, NK is not going to invade SK or encourage Iran or anyone else to do something stupid. We're better off working multilaterally with other world powers, rather than immediately going in with guns blazing at an enemy that can't even feed his own population.

But we're not going in immediately with guns blazing. This is a process that has been going on since the days of the Clinton Administration and involving Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China. The international community has said that North Korea's actions are unacceptable. And we're not attacking an enemy that can't feed his own population.

Shooting down a missile that violates international law and was told not to launch is not attacking North Korea itself. Shooting down the missile would have sent the message that the Obama Administration is not the ineffectual Clinton or Bush Administrations or that Japan was serious in defending itself. It would have sent a message that the world community will not tolerate North Korea's acts of provocation to blackmail the Western powers anymore. It would have sent the message that it is time for the North Korean regime to grow up, sit down, and play nicely and maturely with the big boys at the big boy table.

But instead we have this absurdity and we're going to keep on seeing such shenanigans from North Korea because it works every damn time for them.

[hippie_hunter]

North Korea is seeing how far they can push the boundary.

Exactly. And shooting down the missile would have shown them the boundary that the Obama Administration would tolerate. It would have shown that he was not going to be ineffectual like the Clinton or Bush Administrations. Or it would have shown that Japan will not tolerate North Korean missiles entering and violating Japanese airspace.

Obama could have also shut up conservatives who say that he's weak in foreign policy/defense because of his message in wanting to talk with Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela by showing that he's a realist and not at all naive in wanting to talk to Cuba and Venezuela which pose no threat at all. At the very least attempt to establish dialogue with Iran and offer a handshake in peace. And yet with regimes run by complete madmen like Kim Jong Il, no tolerance will be given to those who definetely violate international law.

Frankly, in my opinion, and this is my opinion, Obama would have been in a very strong position if he or the Japanese ordered to shoot down the missile.

[Kelly]

The problem HH is the fact that we, again, would be going out on our own, without the ok of those countries that you just mentioned.

[hippie_hunter]

The problem HH is the fact that we, again, would be going out on our own, without the ok of those countries that you just mentioned.

China and Russia would have most likely said that a better result would have occurred in dealing with the missile but in truth would not care. South Korea would probably be a little afraid because of their neighbor.

But based on the responses of the rest of the international community: France, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan; especially Japan, Australia, and France (with the responses they've given), the rest of the international community would have most likely been okay with it.

Personally I think that Obama needs to sit down with South Korea, Japan, Australia, China, and Russia and come down with a concrete plan on how to deal with North Korea if such an event ever occurs again. I.E. shooting down a missile with the absolute backing of the international community, the Pacific powers in particular.

[Kelly]

China and Russia would have most likely said that a better result would have occurred in dealing with the missile but in truth would not care. South Korea would probably be a little afraid because of their neighbor.

But based on the responses of the rest of the international community: France, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Japan; especially Japan, Australia, and France (with the responses they've given), the rest of the international community would have most likely been okay with it.

Personally I think that Obama needs to sit down with South Korea, Japan, Australia, China, and Russia and come down with a concrete plan on how to deal with North Korea if such an event ever occurs again. I.E. shooting down a missile with the absolute backing of the international community, the Pacific powers in particular.

China has already said that they want no more sanctions on North Korea, and that a strengthening of a resolution is needed.

In the legal realm, yes, silence means agreement........but, in this case....silence means silence, and I think the international community would have simply been silent. I doubt we would have had one say..."go for it". I just don't see it. Honestly, there has been very little response from anyone. And the BIGGEST response that says anything, is the Security Council pretty much saying....."nothing" did not do or say a damn thing. That speaks volumes to me.

[StorminNorman]

Had this truly had a chance of getting anywhere near the US, I could go with that SN, but Gates knew it couldn't....he knew it couldn't last week in every interview he gave. It was obvious.

We are not the UN's Security Council, we are not the police of the world.

We will know, if and when, they have something that could reach our shores.....Japan has to speak up for Japan, we cannot speak up for them.

The UN being inept is not an excuse for our country to be. If we are not going to enforce the UN's laws than any second we spend discussing penalties against rogue nation is time wasted.

Obama has his first global challenge. If he responds with weakness, God help us.

Now I wish America did not have the be the police of the world - but the question is this...who else is there? If we had had a country that wasn't afraid of being a "world police" in the 1930's Nazi Germany could of been stopped far before it was.

[StorminNorman]

That would be my understanding, Kel, that we could only have shot it down without repercussions if it was directly heading for any place even remotely connected to us or our allies. I know we have the capability to determine exactly where and when such a missile would hit the second it was launched. If it didn't threaten us or our friends directly, why shoot it down? What right would we have to do so? To do so would have been nothing more than macho posturing, and would have accomplished nothing except solidfy in the minds of the rest of the world that we were again acting like the arrogant bullies they believe we are.

Why shoot it down? Because we told them not to shoot it. The international community told them not to shoot it. Spare the rod, spoil the child.

I believe North Korea made it widely known that such an act would be taken as an act of war.

Oh noes! Not North Korea!

And I beleive that the international community made it widely known that such a move by North Korea was intolerable and look at what happened. It's just talk.

Just because something is seen as an act of war, doesn't mean that a state of war is occurring. North Korea, a regime that is based solely on the government's survival, isn't going to go to war where the only result is the end of their regime.

It's scary that two people on a Message Board seem to have a greater appreciation of the situation than our Commander and Chief.

North Korea is seeing how far they can push the boundary.

And guess what, congratulations Obama you just proved that they haven't crossed it. So North Korea will do this again, they will escalate their insolence. Instead of taking out a missile and showing North Korea that Obama isn't going to take their **** he has proven to be weak in the eyes of North Korea. While liberal bloggers and college students will praise Obama for being "reasonable" and give him props for not being "like Bush", inaction here will be interpreted as weakness in the eyes of Kim Jong Ill and any world leader that shares his opinion of America.

Again, Hippie Hunter, is the only one that seems to understand the severity of the situation.

[The Major]

The UN being inept is not an excuse for our country to be.True.

If we are not going to enforce the UN's laws than any second we spend discussing penalties against rogue nation is time wasted.

Agreed. But I wonder exactly how the UN could punish NK any furthur? Hasn't it already had as much done it as much as possible?

Obama has his first global challenge.

Second. Afghanistan was the first.

If he responds with weakness, God help us.

True, I just don't see him being weak. Especially with NK.

Now I wish America did not have the be the police of the world - but the question is this...who else is there? If we had had a country that wasn't afraid of being a "world police" in the 1930's Nazi Germany could of been stopped far before it was.True. I wouldn't exactly say NK is at Germany's level yet. It's close, but its still contained and the world knows exactly whats its dealing with unlike back then. Not should or could America do it alone. China's the biggest wild card. They're in a tough situation which unfortunately gives NK some leverage it otherwise wouldn't.

[SuBe]

And guess what, congratulations Obama you just proved that they haven't crossed it. So North Korea will do this again, they will escalate their insolence. Instead of taking out a missile and showing North Korea that Obama isn't going to take their **** he has proven to be weak in the eyes of North Korea. While liberal bloggers and college students will praise Obama for being "reasonable" and give him props for not being "like Bush", inaction here will be interpreted as weakness in the eyes of Kim Jong Ill and any world leader that shares his opinion of America.

Again, Hippie Hunter, is the only one that seems to understand the severity of the situation.

I agree with this statement. It does show weakness, luckily the missile failed. But, what if it didn't? It would have or could have caused countless deaths. And if anything, they could learn from this and next time, could be dead on target.

It's a very sticky situation, but it was a huge risk to national security that it was not shot down. I would have preferred Japan shot it down, and we back them up. This affects them much more than us.

[Cosmic]

I think the fact we are not on the verge of a new world war is exactly why America should of responded with a strong act against North Korea's defiance. If you are afraid of enforcing UN resolutions when there is no fear of escalation, then you are clearly not going to enforce resolutions when enforcement means possible war.

The lack of action here further displays why the UN is a farce.

Shooting down the rocket might seem like strong action...but they could always just build another one and try again. Also consider the fact that it would be used as propaganda in NK, and in many other places. And again, we'd completely lose the free intel on their launch capabilities. Let NK beat their chests. They can't play this game forever.

[The Major]

And guess what, congratulations Obama you just proved that they haven't crossed it. So North Korea will do this again, they will escalate their insolence. Instead of taking out a missile and showing North Korea that Obama isn't going to take their **** he has proven to be weak in the eyes of North Korea. While liberal bloggers and college students will praise Obama for being "reasonable" and give him props for not being "like Bush", inaction here will be interpreted as weakness in the eyes of Kim Jong Ill and any world leader that shares his opinion of America.

Which would mean something if North Korea were sane. They perceive everything as a weakness. If Obama had shot it down they would have found some other reason to make him and the world appear weak or stupid in their own minds. The situation is still a stalemate IMO.

[hippie_hunter]

Agreed. But I wonder exactly how the UN could punish NK any furthur? Hasn't it already had as much done it as much as possible?
As much as I support the concept of the United Nations, it has proven itself over and over again to be completely inept when it comes to dealing with crisis. It needs serious reform. One that gets rid of the veto power of the permanent members and includes Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India as permanent members. And one that allows it to enforce international law more effectively.

The United Nations is incapable of handling this situation and therefore requires a strategic alignment of the Pacific Powers: Japan, the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and Australia to gather together and come up with a united front for dealing with North Korea.

Second. Afghanistan was the first.But we still have to wait and see if it does work. I support his strategy there so I hope it does.

True, I just don't see him being weak. Especially with NK.But Obama has failed his test with North Korea. He, along with the international community (he doesn't deserve all of the blame even though the test was directed at him), let North Korea launch a missile that the international community said no to and violated international law.

True. I wouldn't exactly say NK is at Germany's level yet. It's close, but its still contained and the world knows exactly whats its dealing with unlike back then. Not should or could America do it alone. China's the biggest wild card. They're in a tough situation which unfortunately gives NK some leverage it otherwise wouldn't.China is a wild card simply because they don't want North Korean refugees. They can't flee to South Korea because the DMZ would blow them to shreds. If they didn't have to deal with a potential massive wave of refugees, they'd probably be much more cooperative.

[The Major]

As much as I support the concept of the United Nations, it has proven itself over and over again to be completely inept when it comes to dealing with crisis. It needs serious reform. One that gets rid of the veto power of the permanent members and includes Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India as permanent members. And one that allows it to enforce international law more effectively.Agreed.

But we still have to wait and see if it does work. I support his strategy there so I hope it does.

But Obama has failed his test with North Korea. He, along with the international community (he doesn't deserve all of the blame even though the test was directed at him), let North Korea launch a missile that the international community said no to and violated international law.
True.

China is a wild card simply because they don't want North Korean refugees. They can't flee to South Korea because the DMZ would blow them to shreds. If they didn't have to deal with a potential massive wave of refugees, they'd probably be much more cooperative.Yup.

[hippie_hunter]

Shooting down the rocket might seem like strong action...but they could always just build another one and try again. Also consider the fact that it would be used as propaganda in NK, and in many other places. And again, we'd completely lose the free intel on their launch capabilities. Let NK beat their chests. They can't play this game forever.

North Korea is dirt poor and therefore do not have the financial capabilities to continue funding such a program if missiles aren't allowed to leave North Korean airspace. They can't get proper test data, they can't see the potential it has. And it would be a sign that they must cooperate with the international community instead of playing games that pisses everyone off.

It was considered unacceptable with cowboy George W. Bush's unilateral actions when most of the international community opposed them and it should be considered unacceptable as well with the murderous monster Kim Jong Il's unilateral actions are condemned by the entire world.

[Zar25]

North Korea is dirt poor and therefore do not have the financial capabilities to continue funding such a program if missiles aren't allowed to leave North Korean airspace. They can't get proper test data, they can't see the potential it has. And it would be a sign that they must cooperate with the international community instead of playing games that pisses everyone off.

It was considered unacceptable with cowboy George W. Bush's unilateral actions when most of the international community opposed them and it should be considered unacceptable as well with the murderous monster Kim Jong Il's unilateral actions are condemned by the entire world.

Interesting posts all around but does this mean we're back at zero ? What's the next possible move ? What should be done ? What can be done ?

[Paradyme]

Interesting posts all around but does this mean we're back at zero ? What's the next possible move ? What should be done ? What can be done ?

Can't we freeze their assets again and make them beg like they did last time?

We might want to tell them that if they try it again we will definitely shoot it down.

I think though it should be apparent to anyone that you can do just about whatever you want but if you nuked or bombed an ally, or maybe not even, country that would be our breaking point.

I'm tired of the U.S. being the only ones that police the world and their childish antics. It's incredibly annoying that no one else will stand up. I don't think we should've necessarily been the ones that had to shoot down the rocket but everyone always looks at us. Why? Because its easier to blame the U.S. if a war starts rather than themselves.

[moraldeficiency]

Hey I'm amazed it didn't just blow up in their faces like their other trials. This really isn't a big threat, their tech is no where near what the soviets had cold war times and those only had a 10 percent success rate. So if N. Korea launched expect at least 9 out of 10 missles to either not fire or just explode in their faces.

Shooting this down would have been a weak move that gave N. Korea more weight and attention then they deserved. Everyone did the right thing just letting them play by themselves.

[The Major]

I'm tired of the U.S. being the only ones that police the world and their childish antics. It's incredibly annoying that no one else will stand up.
Agreed. Though how much of it has to do with lack of resources or refusing deliberately? I'd be far more sympathetic with countries who don't have the resources to those who do, like Russia and China, but do nothing. Politics could enter into it, as well. Maybe some don't want to do it because they think America might get angry?

I don't think we should've necessarily been the ones that had to shoot down the rocket but everyone always looks at us. Why? Because its easier to blame the U.S. if a war starts rather than themselves.
Japan was prepared to shoot it down, not just us. SK probably did that, as well.

[Paradyme]

Agreed. Though how much of it has to do with lack of resources or refusing deliberately? I'd be far more sympathetic with countries who don't have the resources to those who do, like Russia and China, but do nothing. Politics could enter into it, as well. Maybe some don't want to do it because they think America might get angry?

Thats fine if the countries don't have the resources but Russia and China, did nothing. Like always. No doubt it was a test for President Obama but its just a shame that after all the poltical meetings last week you thought that maybe since Medev called Obama his new Comrade he would've maybe helped him a little. Russia and China are obviously friends with North Korea but just said 'this is wrong' to save face.

Japan was prepared to shoot it down, not just us. SK probably did that, as well.

As well as them. Japan was 'prepared' to shoot it down but didn't. Why?

[StorminNorman]

Agreed. But I wonder exactly how the UN could punish NK any furthur? Hasn't it already had as much done it as much as possible?

For the most part that is correct, but the point I am making is that BECAUSE the UN has no further action they can take against North Korea, the responsibility for an adequate responds falls on the shoulders of a country, like America. We failed.

Second. Afghanistan was the first.

He inherited Afghanistan and so he was able to go into with a plan and slowly impliment it - North Korea was an active crisis that required quick resolve. Obama failed his first real "test".

True, I just don't see him being weak. Especially with NK.

I didn't either...until he did nothing on the missile.

True. I wouldn't exactly say NK is at Germany's level yet. It's close, but its still contained and the world knows exactly whats its dealing with unlike back then. Not should or could America do it alone. China's the biggest wild card. They're in a tough situation which unfortunately gives NK some leverage it otherwise wouldn't.

The difference in severity does not make the lesson learned from it any less valuable. We cannot dismiss actions similar to those of Hitler just because we don't think he is as serious.

[Kelly]

Interesting posts all around but does this mean we're back at zero ? What's the next possible move ? What should be done ? What can be done ?

Pretty much....

The next move belongs to China and Russia. They can pressure North Korea better and with more results than anyone. So the ball is in their court at the moment.

[SuBe]

I don't know how common of knowledge this is, but NK has the 4th largest military on the planet. Food for thought.

[Kelly]

I don't know how common of knowledge this is, but NK has the 4th largest military on the planet. Food for thought.

Only because they have the numbers of people.....

[The Major]

Thats fine if the countries don't have the resources but Russia and China, did nothing. Like always. No doubt it was a test for President Obama but its just a shame that after all the poltical meetings last week you thought that maybe since Medev called Obama his new Comrade he would've maybe helped him a little. Russia and China are obviously friends with North Korea but just said 'this is wrong' to save face.
Agreed.

As well as them. Japan was 'prepared' to shoot it down but didn't. Why?
They had strict conditions for when to shoot it down. They only threatened to do it if projectiles fell into their airspace IIRC. Since that didn't happen they didn't shoot.

[The Major]

For the most part that is correct, but the point I am making is that BECAUSE the UN has no further action they can take against North Korea, the responsibility for an adequate responds falls on the shoulders of a country, like America. We failed.Okay.

He inherited Afghanistan and so he was able to go into with a plan and slowly impliment it - North Korea was an active crisis that required quick resolve. Obama failed his first real "test".
True.

The difference in severity does not make the lesson learned from it any less valuable. We cannot dismiss actions similar to those of Hitler just because we don't think he is as serious.
Nothing would please me more then to see NK defeated. I agree they do need to be permanently put down. But its the politics, and now America vulnerability from the recession and busy fighting al quada, that stop this from happening IMO. That's why I'm not to concerned with NK. It's not going anywhere.

[Paradyme]

I don't know how common of knowledge this is, but NK has the 4th largest military on the planet. Food for thought.

After hearing this today I understand why it wouldn't have been to wise if we shot down the rocket. It would've been a massacre.

[The Major]

I don't know how common of knowledge this is, but NK has the 4th largest military on the planet. Food for thought.
Which means squat against superior air forces from SK, America or Russia. Numbers won't help them if China decided to invade, either.

[moraldeficiency]

Look at Iraq during the first war, they had the 5th biggest military at that time and we reduced them to rubble with ease.

Lot's of soldiers-money for stuff like bullets=lots of dead unarmed soldiers.

[SuBe]

Which means squat against superior air forces from SK, America or Russia. Numbers won't help them if China decided to invade, either.
I agree, I just think it is interesting. Especially a nation that can barely feed their own people, puts so much into their military. Interesting.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I'm suprised by the lack of coverage on the American reporters being held in NK right now.

I wonder how much leverage that had in them having basically no oppositon in launching they're missile.

[The Major]

I agree, I just think it is interesting. Especially a nation that can barely feed their own people, puts so much into their military. Interesting.
It's the one thing they actually did well.

[SuBe]

It's the one thing they actually did well.
Feed their people well? By purchasing thousands of Rabbits from Russia to feed their people? They did that well?

[The Major]

Feed their people well? By purchasing thousands of Rabbits from Russia to feed their people? They did that well?
No, creating a military force. They are a part of the ruling class which get fed. The rest starve.

[hippie_hunter]

Interesting posts all around but does this mean we're back at zero ? What's the next possible move ? What should be done ? What can be done ?

We've always been at zero with North Korea. The reason why they have a nuclear and missile program is so they can sell the technology and blackmail the major powers into giving more aid. And the Bush and Clinton Administrations handled North Korea horribly.

The only way to get anything done is if we get China and Russia to be more cooperative. We need to get China to strengthen and seal up its border so they won't be afraid of North Korean refugees. And we need to stop Russia from being such a god damn apathetic doucher.

[The Major]

We've always been at zero with North Korea. The reason why they have a nuclear and missile program is so they can sell the technology and blackmail the major powers into giving more aid. And the Bush and Clinton Administrations handled North Korea horribly.

The only way to get anything done is if we get China and Russia to be more cooperative. We need to get China to strengthen and seal up its border so they won't be afraid of North Korean refugees. And we need to stop Russia from being such a god damn apathetic doucher.
Agreed.

[StorminNorman]

Shooting down the rocket might seem like strong action...but they could always just build another one and try again.

Guess what I would suggest to do if they did that?

Do it again.

[SuBe]

No, creating a military force. They are a part of the ruling class which get fed. The rest starve.
Ah! I agree.

[Hobgoblin]

We've always been at zero with North Korea. The reason why they have a nuclear and missile program is so they can sell the technology and blackmail the major powers into giving more aid. And the Bush and Clinton Administrations handled North Korea horribly.


Thats what I keep hearing is the real danger of the NK missile. They wont launch it against the US or Japan, that would be suicide. They'll just sell the tech to Iran, Syria, Pakistan or some other unfriendly nation or terrorist group. Sure, the missile fell apart sooner than it could have but it got far enough to make the Israelis nervous if the blueprints were bought by Iran.

[Cosmic]

I'm not opposed to shooting down NK's rockets. All I'm saying is that in this situation, it was better for the US to take multilateral, diplomatic steps to addressing the problem, rather than using military force. I think the US has more to gain strategically, by going this route. This is a complicated political process that's going to take time. In the meantime, shooting down their missile tests won't really help us make progress toward any kind of diplomatic solution with these guys.

[StorminNorman]

How does the US benefit from proving that the UN is irrelevant?

[moraldeficiency]

we wouldn't have to bother with them anymore or listen to what they say, the UN looks a hell of a lot like the league of nations right now.

[Marx]

I wish the UN had more clout...

[moraldeficiency]

I wish the UN was in some way effective or good at doing stuff.

[Raiden]

I don't think US should've shot down the missile unless it got too close to Japan or their ally countries. However, even though US should pursuit this matter diplomatically instead of use military as the first option, Obama should pressure China and Russia to condemn this kind of act, and UN should take a stance against NK. Btw, I don't really like UN as it is now, and I wish some kind of reform will be possible in the future.

[StorminNorman]

What is the benefit of the UN taking a stand against North Korea?

[moraldeficiency]

What is the benefit of the UN taking a stand against North Korea?

Credibility. The UN completely lacks it because every time a nation violates a treaty, which NK just did, the UN will be lucky if they can agree to issue a statement condemning the matter let alone actually following up on what it said it would do.

Though in terms of who gives a ****, this is the third missle failure out of three in eleven years, and their nuke wasn't up to WW2 standards.

[Kelly]

I don't think US should've shot down the missile unless it got too close to Japan or their ally countries. However, even though US should pursuit this matter diplomatically instead of use military as the first option, Obama should pressure China and Russia to condemn this kind of act, and UN should take a stance against NK. Btw, I don't really like UN as it is now, and I wish some kind of reform will be possible in the future.


Exactly what are we going to pressure China with? They own us.....

[The Major]

I'm not opposed to shooting down NK's rockets. All I'm saying is that in this situation, it was better for the US to take multilateral, diplomatic steps to addressing the problem, rather than using military force. I think the US has more to gain strategically, by going this route. This is a complicated political process that's going to take time. In the meantime, shooting down their missile tests won't really help us make progress toward any kind of diplomatic solution with these guys.
Is it even possible to reach a diplomatic solution with NK? :huh:

[Kelly]

Yeah......didn't we do that with Hitler?

[Raiden]

Is it even possible to reach a diplomatic solution with NK? :huh:

I think that's still the best solution to this growing problem, and the alternative is to use military, which is just not feasible at this point.

[The Major]

Yeah......didn't we do that with Hitler?
I'm not saying diplomacy is useless. It's just limited in how far it can go. For now it's good for keeping the contained. I don't see the NK leadership ever willingly stepping down with diplomacy under any circumstance.

[The Major]

I think that's still the best solution to this growing problem, and the alternative is to use military, which is just not feasible at this point.
True.

[StorminNorman]

I think that's still the best solution to this growing problem, and the alternative is to use military, which is just not feasible at this point.

Then, quite frankly, you don't understand the situation. Diplomacy requires both sides to have any interest. North Korea doesn't.

[Raiden]

Then, quite frankly, you don't understand the situation. Diplomacy requires both sides to have any interest. North Korea doesn't.

From what I read, NK wants to use this to make itself a threat, so it can secure money from international community as a "concession" for their demand to back down. I don't really think their goal is to actually bomb another country. However, that doesn't justify their action whatsoever, but US needs to consider all options instead of using military against another foreign country, while they are still emboiled in two other wars. It is not pragmatic to start targeting NK militarily.

[StorminNorman]

From what I read, NK wants to use this to make itself a threat, so it can secure money from international community as a "concession" for their demand to back down. I don't really think their goal is to actually bomb another country. However, that doesn't justify their action whatsoever, but US needs to consider all options instead of using military against another foreign country, while they are still emboiled in two other wars. It is not pragmatic to start targeting NK militarily.

And if North Korea gets what they want then they will be find and happy...until they want more and they will blackmail again. The international community cannot reward North Korea for its defiance.

North Korea is not in a position to respond to a military response, such as shooting down the missile.

[Marx]

From what I read, NK wants to use this to make itself a threat, so it can secure money from international community as a "concession" for their demand to back down. I don't really think their goal is to actually bomb another country. However, that doesn't justify their action whatsoever, but US needs to consider all options instead of using military against another foreign country, while they are still emboiled in two other wars. It is not pragmatic to start targeting NK militarily.

Full scale military action will not happen. What's more likely is a UN santion...which will probably do nothing.

[Raiden]

And if North Korea gets what they want then they will be find and happy...until they want more and they will blackmail again. The international community cannot reward North Korea for its defiance.

North Korea is not in a position to respond to a military response, such as shooting down the missile.

So do you think US should treat North Korea like what they did to Iraq after the first Gulf War, which included enforcing a no-fly zone? Or should the military response be an invasion and occupation of NK? None of them sound like something US can do without spreading its resource too thin, and they will be doing it without the consent of the Security Counsel.

[StorminNorman]

So do you think US should treat North Korea like what they did to Iraq after the first Gulf War, which included enforcing a no-fly zone? Or should the military response be an invasion and occupation of NK? None of them sound like something US can do without spreading its resource too thin, and they will be doing it without the consent of the Security Counsel.

I think the military response should of been shooting the missile out of the sky. As to how Obama should move on after his inaction, I am not quite sure.
What's important to remember, though, is to think that this situation only involves North Korea is foolish. The lack of action sent signals to both Iran and Israel, states that will both look at the lack of action as a sign of weakness.

[Kelly]

Susan Rice talks on yesterdays events....

cCHYS9sWd90

[StorminNorman]

"Strong Statements of concern", Security resolution is the best response? :lmao:

:lmao:

I miss John Bolton. He would kick Rice's ass.

[The Major]

Then, quite frankly, you don't understand the situation. Diplomacy requires both sides to have any interest. North Korea doesn't.
What Raiden was getting at, from what I gather, is that it the U.N. can't invade because China won't let them. Unless that changes all they have left is diplomacy and sanctions.

[The Major]

From what I read, NK wants to use this to make itself a threat, so it can secure money from international community as a "concession" for their demand to back down. I don't really think their goal is to actually bomb another country. However, that doesn't justify their action whatsoever, but US needs to consider all options instead of using military against another foreign country, while they are still emboiled in two other wars. It is not pragmatic to start targeting NK militarily.
I wouldn't rule out NK wanting to conquer other nations as a goal. At the very least they'd love to have SK under their rule IMO. They just can't do it since the situation is in a permanent stalemate on both sides due to China's position.

[Kelly]

What Raiden was getting at, from what I gather, is that it the U.N. can't invade because China won't let them. Unless that changes all they have left is diplomacy and sanctions.

Which is true....

[StorminNorman]

What Raiden was getting at, from what I gather, is that it the U.N. can't invade because China won't let them. Unless that changes all they have left is diplomacy and sanctions.

Which are useless.

[The Major]

Which are useless.
Yes. But that's all the options we have without China, and possibly Russia, getting surly about it. They're both much bigger military threats then NK.

[Kelly]

Neither of them will do anything in a military way. Russia can't afford a war, and China can't afford to piss its buyers off.....

BUT, China does realize its leverage here, and it is going to milk it for all its worth. My question is, why not use Sudan and their **** up there against them. I'm ready for some hard ball to be played behind these doors....I'm not saying point one of our guns at them, but simply STAND UP TO THEM....

[Marx]

AMERICANS SPLIT ON NORTH KOREA ACTION
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/06/americans-split-on-north-korea-action/

Americans are almost evenly split over whether to take military action against North Korea for this past weekend's missile launch, but only one in four think the country poses an immediate threat, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

North Korea claims the launch of the long range missile was a success, but the United States and other nations have described it as a failure, and criticized the country for violating a 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution. The U.N. Security Council met Sunday, but took no action against North Korea.

A slim majority of Americans, 51 percent, said the U.S. should take military action against North Korea, while 46 percent of Americans opposed the use of military force against what is often described as the most isolated nation in the world. More than half, 58 percent, of Americans said that North Korea is a long term threat, while 25 percent described the nation as an immediate threat and 17 percent believes it poses no threat at all.

"Nearly nine in ten Americans have an unfavorable view of North Korea, making it just about the least popular country in the eyes of the American public," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But far fewer Americans feel immediately threatened by North Korea, which may be one reason why the public is split on a military response to this weekend's developments."

The poll of 1,023 adult Americans was conducted APril 3-5. Most questions on North Korea were asked of roughly half the total sample, producing a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for each question.

[Hobgoblin]

Military action seems a little hasty. In for a penny, in for a pound. Keep them isolated and foreign opinion against them. Attacking them for a failed missile test makes us the aggressors. If they fire another missile, which shouldnt be any time soon, shoot it down. Like I said before, the real North Korean threat is from its arms sales to rogue nations.

[moraldeficiency]

As long as N. Korea is aiming at someone they've no chance of a sucessful attack, so why come after someone for blatant use of failing 3 decade old technology? A strike makes no sense, this is just a child crying for attention.

[StorminNorman]

Military action seems a little hasty. In for a penny, in for a pound. Keep them isolated and foreign opinion against them. Attacking them for a failed missile test makes us the aggressors. If they fire another missile, which shouldnt be any time soon, shoot it down. Like I said before, the real North Korean threat is from its arms sales to rogue nations.

No, North Korea would still be the aggressors by knowingly and defiantly disobeying UN sanctions.

[hippie_hunter]

Military action seems a little hasty. In for a penny, in for a pound. Keep them isolated and foreign opinion against them. Attacking them for a failed missile test makes us the aggressors. If they fire another missile, which shouldnt be any time soon, shoot it down. Like I said before, the real North Korean threat is from its arms sales to rogue nations.

Shooting down a missile outside of North Korean airspace that enters and violates Japanese airspace isn't an attack on North Korea.

[Hobgoblin]

Shooting down a missile outside of North Korean airspace that enters and violates Japanese airspace isn't an attack on North Korea.

I was thinking of an attack on North Korea itself. Not just the missile.

No, North Korea would still be the aggressors by knowingly and defiantly disobeying UN sanctions.
If we are talking about shooting down the missile, fine. If we are talking about an attack on North Korea proper, than no. Let the punishment fit the crime.

[StorminNorman]

If American intel could give us the coordinates of a facility being used to build missiles...and we can identify a time where there is minimal chance of casualties...I would have no problem with a surgical strike.

Of course I do not think such a scenario is very likely.

[Hobgoblin]

If American intel could give us the coordinates of a facility being used to build missiles...and we can identify a time where there is minimal chance of casualties...I would have no problem with a surgical strike.

Of course I do not think such a scenario is very likely.
Fair enough and agreed.

[hippie_hunter]

I was thinking of an attack on North Korea itself. Not just the missile.
I would be against military action. Even though North Korea can't win in a conflict against the United States, the result would massive casualties for both sides. Why waste the man power when the best solution is to strangle the regime to death?


If we are talking about shooting down the missile, fine. If we are talking about an attack on North Korea proper, than no. Let the punishment fit the crime.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[hippie_hunter]

If American intel could give us the coordinates of a facility being used to build missiles...and we can identify a time where there is minimal chance of casualties...I would have no problem with a surgical strike.

Of course I do not think such a scenario is very likely.

Of course such a scenario is unlikely. First of all we have Barack Obama as President who would frankly never do such a thing. Second, such an attack is pretty much an actual act of war against North Korea and a response that is an act of war against North Korea and I think you pretty much throw away predictablity from them.

Let them keep building missiles. Everytime they launch one, we shoot it down. No one is going to want to buy a technology that will become impossible to prove it's capabilities and continuing such a program will become futile because it will be impossible to determine whether or not improvements will be needed and no one wants a missile that is most likely a dud.

[The Major]

Of course such a scenario is unlikely. First of all we have Barack Obama as President who would frankly never do such a thing. Agreed.


Second, such an attack is pretty much an actual act of war against North Korea and a response that is an act of war against North Korea and I think you pretty much throw away predictablity from them.

IIRC America is still technically at war with NK.

[SuBe]

You recall correctly. We have a Cease Fire with North Korea, not a truce or surrender from either party.

[Paradyme]

Russia opposes sanctions against N.Korea over rocket launch




MOSCOW, April 8 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow is concerned by Pyongyang's recent rocket launch, but believes that imposing sanctions against North Korea would be counterproductive, the Russian foreign minister said on Wednesday.
North Korea (http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20070219/60953737.html) launched a multistage rocket that it said was carrying a communications satellite on Sunday morning, defying pressure from the United States, Japan, South Korea and other countries, which suspect the launch was a cover for a test of a Taepodong-2 long-range missile....

More after the jump: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090408/120980228.html

I don't really get how it would be counterproductive to impose the sanctions again. What other options are there? Next to a really mean and angry letter.

[Hobgoblin]

IIRC America is still technically at war with NK.

No bullets have been fired in over 50 years. Thats close enough to a truce for me. Lets keep it that way.

[SuBe]

More after the jump: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090408/120980228.html

I don't really get how it would be counterproductive to impose the sanctions again. What other options are there? Next to a really mean and angry letter.
:hehe:

[SuBe]

No bullets have been fired in over 50 years. Thats close enough to a truce for me. Lets keep it that way.
I have heard different from Soldiers stationed there. But, I haven't read anything written down about it.

I've heard of mortars fired and pot shots from time to time.

[Marx]

More after the jump: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090408/120980228.html

I don't really get how it would be counterproductive to impose the sanctions again. What other options are there? Next to a really mean and angry letter.

Exactly. What is left to do!?!?!

Ohhh....Russia. :facepalm

[Kelly]

China is afraid that if the sanctions are tightened it will affect the food distribution, which it would. This could mean 1,000's of refugees flooding the boarder cities of China, and they cannot handle that.