Nuff Said!

Mark

Umm.... I posted this on today's Iraqi War (coming to a desert near you! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] ) thread, but it really goes here.

The worthlessness of action against Saddam bothers me. I don't like him, I have no problem with popping a cap in his ass just for fun, but it's a waste of time. New NEWS (drum roll please): N. Korea has nukes. . . - DUH! They're part of that infamous Axis (talk about your invocative terminology from history) aren't they? Didn't they just fire two long-range test rockets last winter from Korea - one impacting in the Pacific on either side of the island of Japan? I think Korea's "shot over the bow" last year plus their recent press releases regarding their bombs are some sort of strategy by them to either (1) "sneak in under the wire" while Saddam is on the plate or (2) challenge the U.S. with a "you gonna get us all?" type of approach.

India and Pakistan have nukes. Plus a fight over Kashmir. Plus starving people and a lack of clean water. Iran has nukes. The French have nukes, and God knows they're unhinged. ( joking! - don't flame! )

Get the picture. Yet one more unstable regime being a nuclear threat is not exactly "news" now is it? So, what's the point? Is it because of the region Saddam sits in and the instability crazy action on his part could cause? Maybe that's a good reason. But the fact that some dictator has weapons of mass destruction is either (1) not good cause for a war or (2) cause to fight wars against at least a dozen nations.

Iran has no nukes dude.

I think we attack Iraq because it is an "Easy" target. Sadam's forces are at a low because of sanctions.
Who knows if he has nukes...unproven.

North Korea has a extremely strong military and a few nukes capable of hitting Japan and tons of troops on the border with the South. I wonder if they can hit the west coast of America. It seems like N.Korea is saying "I dare you to try!" to Bush "Put up or shut up."

This is very unnerving.

Mark

I don't think Iran has fully capable nuclear missiles, but I think they've got the tech to make dirty bombs and possible dropped bombs.

N. Korea, from what we've seen, has only medium range missles, nothing like ICBMs. I think it's shots over the "bow" of Japan showed us the farthest extent it can shoot.

Werent those shots over the bow of Japan proved to be failed satellite launches?

At the time they were reported to be missile tests but i remember reading somewhere that later analysis proved them to be failed satellite launches as Pyongyang said at the time. I'll try to find a link or if anyone can remember this?

EDIT> HERES THE LINK Third paragraph from the bottom.

[ 10-17-2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

There is no oil and gas in north Korea

You are not naive enough to think that the war in Iraq is about removing a dictator or neutralize weapons of mass destruction are you ?

I laughed when I heard. What are you going to do? Nothing you can do.

I read the Bible, got assurance that though a nuclear bomb may hit Israel (It speaks of "the abombination that causes desecration" in Israel) mankind won't be wiped out, and Jesus will come again.

That's my assurance. I may be wrong, but it comforts me, whenever I feel like New York is a prime juicy target.

So then I can laugh. I may get hit by a car. Any of us could. Die in a car accident. Bombs shmombs.

There is no oil and gas in north Korea

You are not naive enough to think that the war in Iraq is about removing a dictator or neutralize weapons of mass destruction are you ?</font>[/QUOTE]Mark is certainly not naive.

There is no oil and gas in north Korea

You are not naive enough to think that the war in Iraq is about removing a dictator or neutralize weapons of mass destruction are you ?</font>[/QUOTE]That is getting old--hearing that kind or statement.... We DID go there last time to save the Kuwait People and (Oil) but this time it's a bit different. WE do not get nearly any oil from Iraq. We ARE worried that he will make a nuke or chemical weapon and sell or even GIVE away these to people like the Terrorists.

We gotta strike them before they can get the change to do this. It doesn't have anything to do with oil. Come on...

With North Korea? I had a feeling that they had nukes for a while--they way they were releasing press statements being VERY smartass and blunt. If we ever DID go to war with them, it would be a VERY tough war. They have a HUGE military force. (One of the largest in the world, If I recall).

Sometimes I wish I were, Yorick. I think life would be much easier! ;)

Mark

I don't think it is smart for me to enter this kind of discussion with Z himself. But I really do not believe the US gave a damn about Kuwaiti people welfare when it went into the first gulf war, it was only a lame excuse, and sure you do not get any oil from Saddam's regime but you would if the US replaced him with a lapdog leader, and that's what all this is about.

As of North Korea the second reason why you don't go to war with them is China! Not only communist friends of North Korea but also a billion potential McDonalds burger eaters you do not want to anger.

I really do not believe that the USA gives a damn about any thing else that the USA's interests.

This is going to get me banned, that's why I avoided political discussions, 'til now.

Kuwait was an ally that was important, just as European nations are important. Oil plays into our interest, just as trade plays into our interest with Europe. We work together because we need different things from one another.

As I remember, Kuwait was invaded in violation of international law, and the international community reacted.

Btw, the US was getting oil from Iraq before the Gulf War, and under the oil for food program, the US was one of the largest purchasers of Iraqs oil. The US isn't going to "install" anyone who's going to give their oil away. That's just a ridiculous statement. The US doesn't have any trouble buying oil from the Middle East, South America, Asia, the South Pacific, or anywhere else.

McDonald's as the reason for no action against N Korea. Now that's interesting ;) , but it would probably be more along the lines of the reasoning behind ending the Korean war. It can't be won conventionally with China backing the N Koreans, and the truth of the matter is, if we went to war against N Korean, China would still buy American products and sell their products here while supporting N Korea as they did half a century ago.

Another BTW, the US and UN involved themselves in Korea without any oil at stake, and over 50 years later the US is still there.

Your arguments are pretty common, but the truth is they are completely stereotypical. "The US is bad, the US only wants oil, the US doesn't care, etc..."

[ 10-18-2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

It hasn't been proven that he does because he hasn't tested one(which couldn't be denied).

It hasn't been proven that he does not have them, either.

That is what the inspectors were suppose to discover after the Gulf War. Hopefully, if Iraq completely submits to the UN inspectors this time, as they promised to do a dozen years ago, this issue will be resolved once and for all.

Well, first let me kick my self in the can for not checking some of my facts before running off at the keyboard. *kicks self in can* I had never seen the news that the "rockets" were instead satellites.

I agree that the US is *very* self-interested, as it's supposed to be. Our government is run, mostly (2 branches), by the elected. Ergo, it is beholden to the will of the people. As a bright guy named Adam Smith (as well as many others) pointed out, you can predict a lot about how people will act if you assume they are *self-interested*. Thus, the US as a nation acts, if you will, as a macro-amalgamation of it's citizens' self-interest, and is therefore self-interested.

That's a long justification for stating some obvious things. There is more than one good reason to go to war with Iraq: kill a very bad man; spread our form of government and economy; help our own economy; gain access to some cheap oil; try out the past decade's new military toys; etc, etc. Thus, oil is *a* reason, not *the* reason. Heard much about OPEC lately? I don't think they suddenly turned on the faucet.

Today's NYTimes: Pakistan gave the bomb to N. Korea in exchange for missile systems to aid in its arms race against India. :(

The escalation with India scares me more than the Middle East. That has (to me) a more frightening potential for destruction. And expansion of said destruction.

Of course right after I posted, I found this:

U.S. Has No Plan to Use Force on N. Korea -Powell

(2002-10-17)

By Irwin Arieff

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday that North Korea had to choose between its nuclear arms program and feeding its people but Washington had no current plans to take military action against it.

"North Korea has some explaining to do to the international community," Powell told reporters.

"North Korea has to make a choice as to whether it will move forward and try to provide a better life for its people or waste what limited resources it has in developing weapons of mass destruction that will not feed one North Korean child," he said in New York.

Asked if the United States was contemplating the use of force against Pyongyang, as it was against Baghdad, Powell responded: "We are not planning anything of that nature right now."

The United States has vowed a "regime change" in Iraq unless Baghdad destroys its weapons of mass destruction under United Nations monitoring.

Bush in January included North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, in an "axis of evil" seeking weapons of mass destruction.

But he has pursued markedly different policies toward Pyongyang and Baghdad, vowing a "regime change" and moving toward war with Iraq while pursuing negotiations with North Korea.

North Korea admitted it had a secret nuclear weapons program -- in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework under which it agreed to shut down its nuclear efforts -- at a session with U.S. officials in Pyongyang two weeks ago.

Powell said that, during an Oct. 3-5 visit to Pyongyang by U.S. special envoy James Kelly, North Korean officials had initially denied enriching uranium for nuclear arms but then came back the next day and admitted it.

He said Kelly had elicited the admission in the context of a U.S. offer of aid to a needy North Korea.

"'In order to help you, you have to meet the expectations of the international community. And one of the problems of greatest concern to us is information that we have that you are involved in enriching uranium,"' Powell quoted Kelly as saying.

"And after first denying it, the North Koreans came back the next day and acknowledged it," Powell said.

© Copyright 2002, Reuters

What could have been Part II:

Opportunity, Peril Seen in N.Korea Nuclear Admission

(2002-10-17)

By Carol Giacomo and Paul Eckert

WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - The United States said North Korea had admitted running a secret nuclear-weapons program and President Bush said on Thursday he would seek a peaceful resolution with Pyongyang, which has in recent months sought improved ties with Washington.

U.S. officials said on Wednesday North Korea, confronted with U.S. evidence, had admitted it had a uranium-enrichment program in violation of a 1994 nonproliferation pact that brought the peninsula back from the brink of crisis.

The assertion from Washington drew demands from Seoul and Tokyo that the reclusive Communist state abide by all nuclear pledges and open its facilities to inspections.

Diplomats and academic analysts said an impasse could scupper inter-Korean rapprochement and kill embryonic economic reforms in North Korea, while poisoning an already bitter election-year debate in South Korea on policy toward the North.

But others, including a top aide to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, said the admission by North Korea two weeks after it reversed decades of denial and owned up to abducting Japanese nationals was another sign Pyongyang wanted serious talks.

U.S. officials said special envoy James Kelly presented the North Koreans with documentation about the nuclear activities during an Oct. 3-5 visit to Pyongyang and the North Koreans had finally acknowledged conducting a secret weapons program.

BUSH WANTS PEACEFUL SOLUTION

Bush said on Thursday he wants a diplomatic solution, saying through a spokesman he views the situation differently than Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

"The president believes this is troubling, sobering news," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One as Bush flew to Atlanta. "We are seeking a peaceful resolution. This is best addressed through diplomatic channels at this point," McClellan said.

In contrast, Bush is threatening military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein after accusing him of developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and backing international terrorism.

Kelly's visit to Pyongyang was the first since President Bush took office and dubbed North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran. North Korean media later accused Kelly of making "very arrogant and threatening remarks" in Pyongyang.

Yim Sung-joon, top South Korean presidential adviser on national security and foreign policy, told reporters Kim would take up the issue with Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at a three-way summit next week in Mexico.

"The president views this as a grave matter and it is his position that it is unacceptable under any circumstances for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons," Yim told reporters.

South Korea's Unification Ministry said in a statement it would raise the nuclear issue in ministerial talks between the two Koreas set to start in Pyongyang on Oct. 19.

QUEST FOR DIALOGUE

But he added that South Korea saw North Korea's surprising confession as part of a quest for dialogue, the latest of several dramatic steps Pyongyang has taken this year to improve ties with the outside world and overhaul its sickly, aid-dependent economy.

"The government is paying close attention to this frank confirmation of nuclear suspicions during special envoy Kelly's visit to North Korea and we regard it as a sign North Korea is willing to resolve this problem through dialogue," Yim said.

One Pyongyang-based diplomat agreed, telling Reuters the nuclear disclosure "could reflect a need to bring these discussions from political rhetoric to a technical level so perhaps both sides can make progress on specific issues."

Japan received a shock admission and an apology from North Korea last month for the abductions of more than a dozen Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s to teach Japanese to North Korean spies. The confession opened the way for normalization talks this month.

A second diplomat in the North Korean capital said he thought Washington's nuclear revelation was a U.S. tactic to pressure Pyongyang after Kelly's trip failed to make headway.

"The North Koreans are de facto ready to make some concessions, even substantial concessions, but they want some reward," he said by telephone.

A senior U.S. official told Reuters in Washington that the Bush administration believed the North's activities had "effectively nullified the 1994 Agreed Framework," a deal under which North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear arms program.

NO U.S. DECISION

But U.S. officials said the administration was consulting Congress and U.S. allies and had made no decision on the next steps in its relations with North Korea.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation.

"Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea. This is an opportunity for peace-loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge," he said.

Kelly and Undersecretary of State John Bolton arrived in Beijing on Thursday, their first stop on a whirlwind round of diplomacy that will take Kelly to Seoul and Tokyo and Bolton to Moscow, Paris, London and Brussels for talks on the issue.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said Beijing learned of the U.S. allegations from news reports.

"We have always supported denuclearization of the Korean peninsula to protect the peninsula's peace and stability," she told reporters. "We think the nuclear issue in Korea should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and consultation."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the North Korean weapons program was a serious violation of its commitments.

"World opinion is united in calling for North Korea to comply with its international obligations and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program Straw said in a statement.

Russia, which has broadened its ties with North Korea in recent years, said on Thursday it would consult Pyongyang.

"We will hold relevant consultations, including with our colleagues in North Korea, and after that we will have the information ... to comment on this," Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters in Moscow.

Japan said it would go ahead with talks with North Korea due to start on October 29. "We want to ask North Korea to deal with this sincerely and get rid of the nuclear suspicions," Prime Minister Koizumi told reporters.

In Seoul, where policy toward Pyongyang has become a bone of contention in the run-up to a December presidential poll, the main opposition party said the disclosure showed the government must "reconsider its policy toward the North from the beginning."

The Dong-a Ilbo, a conservative daily long critical of unconditional aid for North Korea, called the nuclear revelation tantamount to "another stab in the back from North Korea."

© Copyright 2002, Reuters

When I heard the news of North Korea initially, I thought it meant one of two things.

1.) North Korea came forward because they had a fear of being "outted" on the subject. Not necessarily a fear of US, but a fear of the reaction of the international community.

2.) North Korea was saying, "in your face," to the Axis of Evil.

I'd say the above articles make it much more of the former, and thereby much more of a negotiating option on the part of North Korea as with previous admissions.

I can't imagine this resulting in your being banned. Ziroc only bans people who violate the rules and flame in discussions like these.

Disagreeing with the American government's point of view has always been allowed here, GD is full of it. ;)

It may seem intimidating when Ziroc's opinion is opposite your own because its his board, but he's entitled to an opinion, too, and I've never seen him abuse his power. As a matter of fact, he usually avoids these threads, but sometimes, its hard not to speak out.

As long as we "keep it clean", all is fair in gaming and debating here at Escape [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Funny how having nuclear capability puts you in that class of countries that can't be messed with and has to be dealt with "peacefully." I think the government has known N. Korea had (or was close to having) the capability for some time - which is why it was important to address in 1994.

It's a two-stage process. First, most nations *suspect* you ("you" meaning "a nation") have the bomb - your international snafus get swept under the rug for a bit. The other nations make statements about your promises not to havethe bomb, hoping you'll keep quiet if you do. Then, and usually for sake of status, you slowly leak the info. Then, you announce it. Bingo, keys to executive wash room - you are now *in* that class of nations that has to be considered on the big issues because you have the penultimate power. That's how I see it anyway. Seems to fit the India and Pakistan mold.

Doing your tests and getting away with them is the super-coolest. France kept doing tests in the South Pacific until other nations took it to the ICJ on it. France's response - yank it's voluntary submission to ICJ jurisdiction. (Note - if you do not maintain the voluntary submission to ICJ jurisdiction, you can only get sued at the ICJ if you *consent* to the individual suit that is filed - each and every case requires your agreement to be sued.)

Have I gone [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] ?

There is no oil and gas in north Korea

You are not naive enough to think that the war in Iraq is about removing a dictator or neutralize weapons of mass destruction are you ?</font>[/QUOTE]BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!

As I've said before...Aren't you people tired of beating this drum yet? This is getting to be a VERY tired tune.

The current situation regarding Iraq IS NOT ABOUT OIL!! It's COMPLETELY about a genocidal madman with Chemical, Biological, and (very soon) Nuclear weapons. He needs to be stripped of power(and the ability to breathe) ASAP before he starts giving said weapons to his Al Queda buddies and turns them loose on Isreal, Europe or the USA.

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] OFF

I don't think it is smart for me to enter this kind of discussion with Z himself. But I really do not believe the US gave a damn about Kuwaiti people welfare when it went into the first gulf war, it was only a lame excuse, and sure you do not get any oil from Saddam's regime but you would if the US replaced him with a lapdog leader, and that's what all this is about.

As of North Korea the second reason why you don't go to war with them is China! Not only communist friends of North Korea but also a billion potential McDonalds burger eaters you do not want to anger.

I really do not believe that the USA gives a damn about any thing else that the USA's interests.

This is going to get me banned, that's why I avoided political discussions, 'til now.</font>[/QUOTE]Hey...Ziroc likes to debate just like the rest of us. I've seen him do it before. He only pulls out the Stomp-O-Matic for Trolls and Flamers.

As for oil...Russia has a VAST quantity of oil that they are perfectly willing to sell us. We dont *need* oil from Kuwait, Iraq, or any other Middle East nation.

Erm...and, last time I checked...McDonalds didn't have a representative in the White House.

Well, call me a Hard-Core Right-Wing Conservative...oh wait...I *AM* a Hard-Core Right-Wing Conservative,...anyway...I happen to believe that the US *shouldn't* give a damn about anyone else's opinion when it comes to her own safety and well being. In microcosm, I dont ask my neighbor whether or not I should shoot someone breaking into my home and threatening me with a large handgun. I just shoot the SOB. :D

And lastly...Hey...we're all entitled to our opinions. Dont be afraid to express them. Just continue doing it politely and you wont be in any danger of being banned. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, but if you suspect someone will break into your home and preemptively walk over to their house and pop a few caps in them, you get to go to jail. Not so subtle a distinction, and one that needs pointing out, no? :D

Yeah, but if you suspect someone will break into your home and preemptively walk over to their house and pop a few caps in them, you get to go to jail. Not so subtle a distinction, and one that needs pointing out, no? :D [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]OK...I'll grant you that one.

However...what if said someone takes a few pot shots over your house. What are you supposed to do then? If you are in reasonable fear of your life, are you allowed to pre-emptivly defend yourself. Makes for an interesting moral question about reasonable self-defense...

*Looks at clock*

DRAT!! I dont have time to stay and debate this one. Sorry! I'm about to head home, and dont have net access on the weekends. :( It this thread is still around Monday, I'll be back. Otherwise, I suppose we will disagree over something else. :D See ya around TL.

Laters all!

The problem is that SH haven't attack the US - nor has any links to Al'Queda been proven.

Back to North-Korea. Their problemis that their society is collapsing due to something like 5 years of failing crops. There is nationwide hunger - not the best background for maintaining a credible military threat. I think that the nukes will simply be used as bargening chips - i.e. we destroy them and in return you give us ......... North-Korea is in desperate need of forign capital - they have even started creating their first 'free-economy-zone' - like you find in China.