Good thing we invaded Iraq

[billvon 2,434]

Good thing we went into Iraq to stop their nuclear program; we're safe from nuclear terrorism now! I'm glad we directed our energies in the right direction.

From the washington post:
--------------------------
U.S., N. Korea Drifting Toward War, Perry Warns
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

Former defense secretary William Perry warned that the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, perhaps as early as this year, in an increasingly dangerous standoff that also could result in terrorists being able to purchase a North Korean nuclear device and plant it in a U.S. city.

"I think we are losing control" of the situation, said Perry, who believes North Korea soon will have enough nuclear warheads to begin exploding them in tests and exporting them to terrorists and other U.S. adversaries. "The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he said in an interview.

[AggieDave 6]

We've seen this coming for a long time, though.

Past presidents that wasn't as hard on N. Korea and China has set us down a road that may have been prevented...

This world is a fucked up place, but then again, it always has been, since the dawn of time.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Sebazz1 2]

Maybe we will see what our government will call as a pre-emptive nuclear strike? If the current direction is war and the situation is getting as serious as it appears to be, I doubt our top leaders will hesitate for long to nip the nads off of the current North Korean government. Well all of us have been hearing for years and years and years about how North Korea would eventually end up being our worse threat... So the pot is about to finally boil over.

Sure would be cool if China stepped in. Somebody, anybody... Prolly not.

[AggieDave 6]

That is a big danger, I've said for a long time now (since I was about 14 and started studying politics, history and war and stuff...yeah, i know, i was an odd kid), that China is going to be our worst threat and quite possibly one of the most devistating wars in US history will be with them.

They have nukes, they have a huge army, and they have the resolve to use both of them. The only thing preventing them from being a viable threat to us at this moment (besided nuclear war) is their lack of a substantial navy. Without a very strong navy they will never be able to sustain a war past the first blow (on our soil).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,434]

>Past presidents that wasn't as hard on N. Korea . . .

Only one post before past presidents are blamed for an issue that became serious in December of 2002 when the Koreans ejected UN weapons inspectors. That was fast.

I just wish we had spent our energy over the past year or so dealing with the real threat to our national security - a country that has nuclear weapons, has stated they will destroy us, is developing ICBM's and is happy to sell to terrorists. I hope it's not too late to start paying attention to this.

[CornishChris 5]

Is there much oil in N Korea?

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

Good thing we went into Iraq to stop their nuclear program; we're safe from nuclear terrorism now! I'm glad we directed our energies in the right direction.

From the washington post:
--------------------------
U.S., N. Korea Drifting Toward War, Perry Warns
Tuesday, July 15, 2003

Former defense secretary William Perry warned that the United States and North Korea are drifting toward war, perhaps as early as this year, in an increasingly dangerous standoff that also could result in terrorists being able to purchase a North Korean nuclear device and plant it in a U.S. city.

"I think we are losing control" of the situation, said Perry, who believes North Korea soon will have enough nuclear warheads to begin exploding them in tests and exporting them to terrorists and other U.S. adversaries. "The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he said in an interview.

Are you glad for just those reasons or also the fact that once again and more so than before it was a showcase operation of effectiveness.
Things performed there will be taught at the war college for some time to come.
It also shows our resolve as opposed to some the lasts administrations bungled attempts in somalia, etc.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

an issue that became serious in December of 2002 when the Koreans ejected UN weapons inspectors

Bill, you're much smarter then that! So you're saying that there was no danger or worry until December of 2002?

That's wrong, if past presidents would have kept a hard line on N. Korea about their weapons program (which we've suspected for the past nearly 20 years), then we could quite possibly not be in this situation.

Ok, seriously Bill, I'm pretty annoyed by your post, you are much smarter then that and I'm having a hard time believing you believe what you posted.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,434]

>Is there much oil in N Korea?

Nope. Wolfowitz himself said that's one reason we didn't pay much attention to them.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Good thing we went into Iraq to stop their nuclear program; we're safe from nuclear terrorism now! I'm glad we directed our energies in the right direction.

Well....Oh. You're being sarcastic, huh?

[billvon 2,434]

>So you're saying that there was no danger or worry until December of 2002?

North Korea has been a problem for the past 50 years or so. (There was that war and all.) Up until recently it looked like that problem was contained. The primary threat was their nuclear weapons program, and the IAEA was doing a reasonable job (not great, but reasonable) of keeping an eye on their plutonium enrichment program. That ended in December.

There are a lot of threats out there; juggling them is difficult. The threat from North Korea should have gotten way more attention than it did. Calling them part of the axis of evil and then essentially ignoring them while we prosecuted another two wars was foolish.

[AggieDave 6]

I understand they've been a problem for the past 50 years, BUT in the past 20 is when we knew about their very agressive plans for nuclear devolopment. Thus past presidents are to be blamed for not having a hard line with them.

I don't really agree that IAEA was doing a reasonable job...they were doing a half-assed job, but if more political muscle could have been put behind them as well as other political influence from other areas, then this could have been snipped in the bud.

Roughly meant, the government would have collapsed due to many of the same reasons Soviet Russia collapsed, thus end of problem. Hell, N. Korea is hurting so bad due to famine and poverty, I wouldn't put it past them to initiate a conflict merely out of frustrated anger.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,434]

>Hell, N. Korea is hurting so bad due to famine and poverty, I
> wouldn't put it past them to initiate a conflict merely out of
> frustrated anger.

I think they're considerably smarter than that. I think they are threatening war precisely because they ARE hurting and they need that as a bargaining chip for aid. As they are now developing the capacity they need to wage that war, we shouldn't take that threat lightly.

[AggieDave 6]

You're changing the direction of the discussion Bill. I want you to prove me wrong on my first points.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,434]

>I want you to prove me wrong on my first points.

Which points? That the previous presidents screwed everything up and Bush's efforts were simply not enough to overcome their problems?

In March of 2001 Kim Jong Il came to Washington. Powell tried to make some headway with him, but that effort was scuttled when Bush publically denounced him as "untrustworthy."

Later that year, from the Telegraph: (09/03/2001)

"THE relationship between America and North Korea soured yesterday after President George W Bush made it clear that he was deeply suspicious of the communist North's commitment to current agreements.
. . . .
His remarks were a clear break from the previous administration's support for Mr Kim's efforts to build bridges with the North, which included a visit to Pyongyang by Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State."

This is an example of how Bush's efforts were not enough to overcome previous mistakes?

[AggieDave 6]

So your point is that Bill Clinton was trying to make friends with a person who is responsible for the 1983 bomb attack in Rangoon that killed several members of the South Korean Cabinet AND the bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987? He is also known for having young women kidnapped from Japan as well as other nations in the area to be his "companions" at his luxury houses around his nation.

Making friends with someone like that is not what this country needs. W. may not have been put in the position he was put in, if Clinton had taken a hard line with him, instead of trying to get in bed with him (politically speaking).


All in all, sounds like one hell of a guy, huh?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,434]

>So your point is that Bill Clinton was trying to make friends with a
> person who is responsible for the 1983 bomb attack in Rangoon
> that killed several members of the South Korean Cabinet AND the
> bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987?

Yep, just as Reagan made friends with the Contras, Bush I made friends with the Mujahideen, and Rumsfeld made friends with Hussein.

>Making friends with someone like that is not what this country needs.

Yet we're allies with Uzbekistan, a country that is a horror show even by North Korea standards.

>W. may not have been put in the position he was put in, if Clinton
> had taken a hard line with him . . .

So far the hard line has resulted in the resumption of a crash weapons development program. I'd say it hasn't worked. I'm glad it only started last year and not 9 years ago or we would be in much worse shape today.

[AggieDave 6]

Have we learned anything from our past ability to make "friends" with evil people? We should have...

N. Korea's weapon program was still running strong when Clinton was making friends with Kim Jong-il, the fact that it is still in operation is not Bush's fault. At this point its a lot like a snowball going down a hill. It started a while back, if it would have been stopped a while back, it could have been stopped. Now, through the non-efforts of those before us, we are left with a situation in which no matter what W. does, something bad will result. We may not see the bad results for 20 years, but mark my words, it will happen, even if "peace" is found now.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TheAnvil 0]

Sebazz in the political threads.....CRY HAVOC AND LET LEASH THE DOGS OF WAR!!!!

Glad to see ya!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 2,434]

>It started a while back, if it would have been stopped a while back, it
>could have been stopped.

How? That war didn't work.

>Now, through the non-efforts of those before us, we are left with a
> situation in which no matter what W. does, something bad will result.

So far Bush has done an awful lot to exacerbate the problems with North Korea. Calling another leader names does nothing to stabilize relations between two countries. If he had been smart, he would have left it to some of the better minds in his administration; Powell put a lot of effort into improving N Korea relations.

[AggieDave 6]

I never said Bush was handling it correctly, I just think handing the whole blame off on him is incorrect.

Yeah, we tried the war, that didn't work for various reasons (it could have worked), but that's not the point, you're skipping over 'your boy' on purpose. Even if in the early '90s, if Clinton would have taken a hard line with N. Korea, then that could have possibly solved the problems we are now facing.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahh yes. North Korea. All of those shipments of US tax-payer funded heating oil really shut down that weapons program didn't it?

Is anyone here honestly naive enough to believe that the technology to reprocess spent fuel rods into weapons grade nuclear material really developed since Bush started taking a hard line with the NKs? Dear Lord I pray that's not the case, because if so our educational system is more dire straights than I could ever have imagined.

We've seen this coming for a long time. The whole Korean Peninsula is a black eye for those who swore by Kennan's policy of containment - more so than Vietnam in many cases, less so than others. What a disaster.

Pre-emptive nuclear strike, eh, Seb? Perhaps not a bad idea with tactical nukes AND if initiated by the ChiComs. The NK government is so wacko there is no telling what they will do. Any nation that subsidizes its weapons programs through sales of illicit drugs and missile technology is a serious threat to world stability no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.

Those comparing Iraq to NK really need to learn there politics/history and something of warfare. Totally different paradigm here. I mean totally.

Lefties will make fools of themselves doing the above, no doubt. Bush and his successor (hopefully himself or a Libertarian, better still) will have to actually deal with this situation. I think engagement is the only option, but every time we try to engage these people they make ridiculous demands and walk out - or almost every time. Economic engagement with a completely state run economy is impossible - they have nothing to trade!

Any thoughts on how to engage these maniacs?

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

A nice comparison between the Contras and the Sandinistas might be helpful for those ignorant of Central American history in the 80's....for those who fit into that category please do some research and decide whom you would have supported...
Mujahadeen vs. the Russkis - again please make your comparison. Containment as a foreign policy paradigm is again pertinent here - more than tangentially.

Uzbekistan vs. NK? Hmm...gotta disagree there. That country doesn't have half the repression/famine NK does. I know what a royal SOB Karimov is, but comparing him to Kim Jong Il is like comparing an apple with a worm in it to an apple left to rot for a week or two in the sun.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[chuteless 1]

no oil....America wants their rice crop.

[billvon 2,434]

>Is anyone here honestly naive enough to believe that the technology
> to reprocess spent fuel rods into weapons grade nuclear material
> really developed since Bush started taking a hard line with the NKs?

Uh, no, that's been around since the 50's. It's their _use_ of it that's the problem.

>Those comparing Iraq to NK really need to learn there politics/history
>and something of warfare. Totally different paradigm here. I mean
> totally.

I agree 100%. North Korea is actually a threat to the US.

>Economic engagement with a completely state run economy is
>impossible - they have nothing to trade!

So don't trade. Just give them what they want - in return for a permanent (and enforced) presence of IAEA inspectors, abandonment of their weapons and ICBM programs, and UN oversight of their military. Compare the cost of that to a single nuclear weapon sold to terrorists in LA, or the cost of a US-N Korea war where even a single nuclear weapon is used.