warpedskydiver 0 #1 March 21, 2006 N. Korea Suggests It Can Strike U.S. First By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer 2 hours ago North Korean leader Kim Jong Il speaks at a ... SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat. "As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States." Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend. The spokesman also said it would be a "wise" step for the United States to cooperate on nuclear issues with North Korea in the same way it does with India. Earlier this month, President Bush signed an accord in India that would open some of its atomic reactors to international inspections in exchange for U.S. nuclear know-how and atomic fuel. The accord was reached even though New Delhi has not signed the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty and condemned the United States for giving India "preferential" treatment. "If the U.S. is truly interested in finding a realistic way of resolving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, it would be wise for it to come out on the path of nuclear cooperation with us," he said. The North's announcement that it has a nuclear arsenal risked escalating tensions in the prolonged standoff over its program and threatened the prospect of resuming six-nation talks on the dispute. "We have built nuclear weapons for no other purpose than to counter U.S. nuclear threats," the Foreign Ministry spokesman said. It is rare for North Korea to mention its nuclear capabilities in such an explicit manner. The communist state usually refers to its "nuclear deterrent force." North Korea first declared last year that it has nuclear weapons, although the claim could not be confirmed independently. Experts believe the North has extracted enough plutonium from its main nuclear reactor for at least a half-dozen weapons. Six-nation talks have been stalled since November over a dispute surrounding financial restrictions the United States imposed on North Korea for its alleged currency counterfeiting and money laundering. Those talks involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. Pyongyang says it will not return to the negotiating table unless the restrictions are lifted. But Washington demands that the North come to the talks without preconditions, saying the two issues are separate. The North's spokesman said his country had shown "maximum flexibility" in trying to resolve the financial dispute, proposing possible solutions during a meeting in New York earlier this month. The meeting produced no breakthrough. "The Bush administration talks about six-party talks, but it actually is paying no attention to the talks," the spokesman said, according to KCNA. The spokesman also disputed last week's U.S. national security report that, among other things, said North Korea posed a serious nuclear proliferation challenge. "In a word, it is a robbery-like declaration of war," the spokesman said. "Through this document, the Bush administration declared to the world that it is a group of war fanatics." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #2 March 21, 2006 The course of action we must follow here is clear - attack Iran! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #3 March 21, 2006 tee hee! bill made a funny!"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #4 March 21, 2006 QuoteThe course of action we must follow here is clear - attack Iran! Thats a good point. Iran...no nukes but possible plans to build them. North Korea...by their own admission they have nukes and they have issued a veiled threat to use them against the US. So which country presents the greater threat based on current proven capability and yet which country is America attacking most often verbally? Has North Korea slipped off the agenda as far as the axis of evil is concerned? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #5 March 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe course of action we must follow here is clear - attack Iran! Thats a good point. Iran...no nukes but possible plans to build them. North Korea...by their own admission they have nukes and they have issued a veiled threat to use them against the US. So which country presents the greater threat based on current proven capability and yet which country is America attacking most often verbally? Has North Korea slipped off the agenda as far as the axis of evil is concerned? But N. Korea doesn't have a fruitcake for a leader. Ummm..... But N. Korea doesn't have any missiles . Ummm....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #6 March 21, 2006 >Has North Korea slipped off the agenda as far as the axis of evil is concerned? I think it's very important to the administration that Iran does not become the next big problem. The PNAC doctrine said that getting a western-style democracy into Iraq was critical in terms of westernizing the Middle East, and Bush has referred to this several times: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Iran is now stepping up the rhetoric against us. If they get nuclear weapons, Bush will be forced to deal with them as he does any other nuclear power (i.e. carefully and with diplomacy) and there's no way he wants to be seen as conciliatory to an unfriendly arab state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #7 March 21, 2006 Quote>Has North Korea slipped off the agenda as far as the axis of evil is concerned? I think it's very important to the administration that Iran does not become the next big problem. The PNAC doctrine said that getting a western-style democracy into Iraq was critical in terms of westernizing the Middle East, and Bush has referred to this several times: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Iran is now stepping up the rhetoric against us. If they get nuclear weapons, Bush will be forced to deal with them as he does any other nuclear power (i.e. carefully and with diplomacy) and there's no way he wants to be seen as conciliatory to an unfriendly arab state. Iranians aren't arabs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #8 March 21, 2006 >Iranians aren't arabs. Sorry, middle eastern state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adriandavies 0 #9 March 21, 2006 Quote>Has North Korea slipped off the agenda as far as the axis of evil is concerned? I think it's very important to the administration that Iran does not become the next big problem. The PNAC doctrine said that getting a western-style democracy into Iraq was critical in terms of westernizing the Middle East, and Bush has referred to this several times: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Iran is now stepping up the rhetoric against us. If they get nuclear weapons, Bush will be forced to deal with them as he does any other nuclear power (i.e. carefully and with diplomacy) and there's no way he wants to be seen as conciliatory to an unfriendly arab state. Billvon if I understand your argument and use of Pres. Bush's quotes correctly then you are saying that although N Korea poses the most credible immediate threat, Iran has to be dealt with first as dealing with it fits wider American foreign policy aims? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #10 March 21, 2006 >although N Korea poses the most credible immediate threat N Korea does pose a more immediate and credible threat than Iran. >Iran has to be dealt with first as dealing with it fits wider American > foreign policy aims? Well, not quite. I was suggesting that the above reason is why the administration will choose to deal with it first (or deal with it more aggressively.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #11 March 21, 2006 Quote>although N Korea poses the most credible immediate threat N Korea does pose a more immediate and credible threat than Iran. >Iran has to be dealt with first as dealing with it fits wider American > foreign policy aims? Well, not quite. I was suggesting that the above reason is why the administration will choose to deal with it first (or deal with it more aggressively.) I thought it was because it's easier to bully a potential nuclear state than an actual nuclear state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #12 March 21, 2006 >I thought it was because it's easier to bully a potential nuclear >state than an actual nuclear state. Perhaps, but I hope not. It would be incredibly bad to have countries realize that developing nuclear weapons (and making them actually work) is the only way to get the US to negotiate with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrBounce 0 #13 March 22, 2006 Quote>I thought it was because it's easier to bully a potential nuclear >state than an actual nuclear state. Perhaps, but I hope not. It would be incredibly bad to have countries realize that developing nuclear weapons (and making them actually work) is the only way to get the US to negotiate with them. I think that that's exactly what has happened though. Economically, N.K. is about as strong as Chad or Mongolia, but by having nukes its got the US, S.Korea, China and Japan all interested in talking to it and making economic concessions. Has anyone noticed that by threatening to develop nukes, Iran has now got the US to agree to sit down with it and negotiate over the future of Iraq? After all, Iraq is Iran's biggest concern, having nukes is only secondary to not having a strong and antagonistic Iraq next door. Like it or not, nuclear weapons or their potential are a very strong negotiating point. Gavin Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. If you don't take it out and use it, its going to rust. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #14 March 22, 2006 They choose to attack Iran because they threaten the US Dollar/Oil relationship more than N. Korea does. Iran was suppose to switch to the Euro for Oil sales which jepordises (sp) our dominance as the sole currency used to buy oil. (which coincidentally is why we attacked Iraq, not the WMD scam, he's a bad guy scam, or any of the others - Saddam switched to the Euro for oil - bad move) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,425 #15 March 22, 2006 >Iran was suppose to switch to the Euro for Oil sales which >jepordises (sp) our dominance as the sole currency used to buy oil. Got any evidence of this? I have heard that before but never seen it substantiated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #16 March 22, 2006 QuoteGot any evidence of this? I have heard that before but never seen it substantiated. Read this article from Rep Ron Paul of TX: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm It addresses my statements and MUCH, much more... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #17 March 22, 2006 Quote>I thought it was because it's easier to bully a potential nuclear >state than an actual nuclear state. Perhaps, but I hope not. It would be incredibly bad to have countries realize that developing nuclear weapons (and making them actually work) is the only way to get the US to negotiate with them. Wow, do you really think so?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #18 March 24, 2006 Hey Billvon (or anyone else?)- Any comment on Rep Ron Pauls speech? I find it scary in that few if any other reps (or media) acknowledge what he is saying. If folks really grasp what his speech is talking about, they would understand this is all a scam perpatrated on the American public and has been going on for sometime. Incedentially, Ron Paul has introduced legislation to keep the Fed Rsv reporting M3 (amount of currency in circulation) (sorry for the crappy spelling. I never did well in spelling ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
