Korea. Now what?

Korea. Now what? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 8:45:12 AM)
N Korea has tested a nuclear device, now what? So far the only international reaction has been a lathering at the mouth and no apparent clue what to do or can be done. If as one of Bush's aids said, the US cannot live with a nuclear N Korea, what options have they?

Chaingang -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 9:01:14 AM)
Gee, I thought this was exactly the desired result of Bush's brilliant foreign policy. Everybody without nuclear capability becomes our bitch so we can't even feign surprise when they wish to avoid that particular fate. We are therefore in a new era of nuclear proliferation. Unless the U.S. stands down what can it rationally expect from other countries except more nuclear acquisition policies all around? Nukes are the ultimate fear weapons, even before you drop any of them everyone literally flips out. It's the perfect threat du jour for the Republican party.

LadyEllen -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 2:44:36 PM)
Now what - if the "dear leader" had been forced to spend money on nuclear weapons development in order to protect N Korea from possible US aggression - with the result that there was not enough money to feed the people, and so N Korea saw a significant number of its people die from starvation? The "dear leader", could justify this to himself as the lesser of two evils, as many more of his people could have died in the case of some US attack and invasion, compared to the number who died from starvation, (viz the Iraq situation). Would this mean that President Bush's rhetoric and posturing against N Korea as part of the axis of evil, (being perceived as a direct threat by N Korea, particularly after the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq), was responsible for the starvation of a significant number of N Korean people, and therefore that GWB has more that should be on his conscience than has so far been discussed here? E (OMG am I looking forward to responses to this!)

mnottertail -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 2:59:42 PM)
I remember about 6 months ago, Korea was begging us for fuckin' COOKING OIL. We said sure, we got a ton of the shit, and we will see if we can get it out to you in the next nine months or so. Can you imagine what a war does for a non-existant economy? Peruse the little hole called French Indo-China once upon a time...................Oh, how the mighty have fallen, it is in many countries best interest to act belligerently with the United States. We got these things called dollars, which much of the world has never seen. Alternatively, of course; they can go the way of China and Japan, and suck dollar bills from us willy nilly until they are in a position to demand paper from us............. They said they would have given this up long ago, I think it was back in Reagans time if we would have helped finish the electrical plant we promised to buil them......... You can look all this stuff up, it was boring headlines once, in amongst blowjobs and the like, which of course was the real news....................... Ron

Tantalus42 -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 4:55:48 PM)
Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania.

dombill32 -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 7:30:24 PM)
The cat is out of the bag in N. Korea. There is no way at this point to create a situation where N. Korea would not possess nuclear weapons without a direct invasion, something we cant do with our military stretched to the breaking point already. Unless of course the Bush administration decided to do this and reinstitute the draft. To compound the problem of a potential invasion would be the risk of China coming into the war on the side of N. Korea and launching its own invasion of Taiwan. It will still be years before N. Korea could fire a nuclear missle that could hit the continental USA but until then and beyond there is the risk of N. Korea selling material and the technology to other rogue states or terrorists organizations (Iran had several people in N. Korea for the missle tests back in July). A naval blockade (something being discussed) wouldnt be effective in stopping this movement of material and technology because you can sneak these kinds of things out of the country in a suitcase. I dont think that there is much the US can do at this point.

popeye1250 -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 9:29:14 PM)
I just don't see why the U.S. should get involved in this. I'd like to get all of our Troops out of S. Korea, 53 years is enough! Let China and Russia deal with Korea. Can you imagine being a U.S. soldier dying for S. Korea? No Thanks. All this Imperialism crap is going to bankrupt the U.S.

Sinergy -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 9:44:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tantalus42 Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania. Lithuania has the bomb? THE HORROR! Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

nefertari -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 10:42:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tantalus42 Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania. Snort Sad, but funny. Actually, if Iraq is any example, the time to invade N. Korea would have been 10 years ago. Isn't that what was said during the 2004 Presidential Debates? That Suddam would have had WMD capabilities in 10 years and that's why we had to attack now? So, apparently we missed our window of opportunity. That way they can blame this all on Clinton.

Sinergy -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 11:11:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tantalus42 Well, of course the proper reaction since they now have wmd's is for us to invade... oh, let's say Lithuania. Are you suggesting that my son's cub scout troop function as shock wave troops and fling themselves on the Lithuanian army's bayonets? Sinergy

SkatDomina -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/9/2006 11:46:49 PM)
i'm not the world's best on politics but can someone explain to me why other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we do? i mean, how can we say 'you can't have them but we can' ?

Level -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 1:55:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dombill32 The cat is out of the bag in N. Korea. There is no way at this point to create a situation where N. Korea would not possess nuclear weapons without a direct invasion, something we cant do with our military stretched to the breaking point already. Unless of course the Bush administration decided to do this and reinstitute the draft. To compound the problem of a potential invasion would be the risk of China coming into the war on the side of N. Korea and launching its own invasion of Taiwan. It will still be years before N. Korea could fire a nuclear missle that could hit the continental USA but until then and beyond there is the risk of N. Korea selling material and the technology to other rogue states or terrorists organizations (Iran had several people in N. Korea for the missle tests back in July). A naval blockade (something being discussed) wouldnt be effective in stopping this movement of material and technology because you can sneak these kinds of things out of the country in a suitcase. I dont think that there is much the US can do at this point. The North Koreans would almost certainly consider a naval blockade an act of war. What to do. It's getting more and more obvious that China is unable or unwilling to "control" the Koreans; I don't know if the US can talk with them and make things better, but it'd be worth it to try.

Level -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 1:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SkatDomina i'm not the world's best on politics but can someone explain to me why other countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons when we do? i mean, how can we say 'you can't have them but we can' ? Because the North Korean leader is insane, and a dipshit. The Iranian leader isn't much better.

popeye1250 -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 2:26:20 AM)
Well, let's let Europe handle this one.

Zensee -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 2:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Well, let's let Europe handle this one. Yeah, that way the US will be free to go make another new mess somewhere else for the world to clean up. 0

meatcleaver -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 3:28:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Well, let's let Europe handle this one. If Europe had to handle Iraq, it wouldn't be in a mess now because there would not have been an invasion. While I am not saying Europe would solve the ME problem, they would be talking to all sides and not declaring one side as the good guy and the other as the bad guy and refusing to talk to the bad guy. The Syrian President said that America doesn't want to talk and anyway isn't a honest broker. It was also through America's behaviour towards Syria that stopped liberalisation in Syria. Europe realising that an invasion of Iran is unfeasible (successfully anyway), they advocate talks with Iran. Bush refuses to talk to Iran. Yesterday on BBC service one of Bush's aids in charge of Iranaian affairs admits he has never met his Iranian counterparts. Doh! The quicker the US gets a new administration and kicks out the neocons the better. The world needs an administration that is not full of blind prejudices.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 7:41:10 AM)
quote: Europe realising that an invasion of Iran is unfeasible (successfully anyway), they advocate talks with Iran. Bush refuses to talk to Iran. Meat, The invasion of Iraq was feasible and successful. The occupation and "peace" has been an abysmal failure. The reason is the same as the reason for the invasion's success. There was no restraint or political correctness involved with destroying Saddam's army and ability to make war. Once that was over however the story became the "killing of innocents" and non-military "collateral damage". As if it occurred for the first time in the history of warfare. The local adversaries exploited that and realized it didn't need to fight a battle for territory it only needed to survive; knowing that the press would supply the ammunition necessary to polarize the US public. The war was won, the occupation and attempt at democracy is lost. Amazing in this and the other Korean thread there is a call to action and arms in Korea by the same people who didn't feel an armed conflict in Iraq was appropriate. I have the same attitude as I have for the middle east in general. Let them kill themselves. Put a public referendum on the ballot in S. Korea and Iraq. A simple question, do you want the US to maintain it's presence or leave. It would let the people self determine their fate. Let the purple fingers decide. I would be surprised if they voted for us to leave, because in both cases it would be a vote for suicide. Beyond the rhetoric without a US presence in S. Korea, there would be no S. Korea. The same is true for Iraq. Iran would welcome the opportunity to take on a disarmed Iraq. Let them. In both cases the next target of the budding quest for world domination wouldn't be the US. Japan and Russia would have to be concerned about Korea and the EU would have to deal with Iran. Let them. Listening to the call for restraint and political dialog is what generated the perceived strength of Iran and Korea. Does the idea the Iran and Korea having a couple of low megaton nukes put the US in jeopardy? NO! However it does put at risk every country within 500 miles in range. I don't support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, therefore I don't support the troops. I don't support the US patrolling to border between South and North Korea. Bring them all home and station them on our borders, including 10 Million land minds. Let that great institution, the UN, solve the outstanding issues. This time without the US in the lead. Lets just sit there like the rest pontificating about human rights and accomplishing nothing but wasting time while Korea and Iran grow stronger. We are far enough away to enjoy the beautiful sunsets that come in the afterglow of far away nuclear bombs exploding. Maybe when they beg us enough to again take an active role we'll consider it. I'm sure the response to this will be that the US, specifically President Bush, caused the problems so it's our responsibility to solve them. What a great way for the US to always be at fault. If the world is so tired of being forced to follow US dogma regarding democracy and freedom, let them have the opportunity to do better. No US intervention, and of course no US dollars. We'll supply the same lip service support until the action fails and then we'll offer the same head shake and Monday morning quarterbacking while saying; "I told you that wouldn't work".

meatcleaver -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 8:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Europe realising that an invasion of Iran is unfeasible (successfully anyway), they advocate talks with Iran. Bush refuses to talk to Iran. Meat, The invasion of Iraq was feasible and successful. The occupation and "peace" has been an abysmal failure. I accept that but I don't see the point of a successful invasion if the peace can't be won, it all ends in failure and a waste of time money and blood. What has happened in Iraq is what Swartzkopf said would happen so the Bush administration were forwarned. The local adversaries exploited that and realized it didn't need to fight a battle for territory it only needed to survive; knowing that the press would supply the ammunition necessary to polarize the US public. The war was won, the occupation and attempt at democracy is lost. Isn't that war? A successful invasion and withdrawal without achieving ones aims is a war lost in my book. I think even Bush recognizes that which is why he won't withdraw and leave it to some other President down the road and then accusing that President of losing the war. Amazing in this and the other Korean thread there is a call to action and arms in Korea by the same people who didn't feel an armed conflict in Iraq was appropriate. I have the same attitude as I have for the middle east in general. Let them kill themselves. Invading Korea will probably achieve less than invading Iraq, it will be a tar pit and it's difficult to see China sitting back and watching a war on its doorstep. Iran would welcome the opportunity to take on a disarmed Iraq. Let them. And who disarmed them? Whichever way the wind blows the US won't be thanked. In both cases the next target of the budding quest for world domination wouldn't be the US. Japan and Russia would have to be concerned about Korea and the EU would have to deal with Iran. Let them. Listening to the call for restraint and political dialog is what generated the perceived strength of Iran and Korea. Does the idea the Iran and Korea having a couple of low megaton nukes put the US in jeopardy? NO! However it does put at risk every country within 500 miles in range. Nukes are defensive weapons, they are pointless when it comes to mounting an invasion. Everybody has seen what happened to a non-nuclear Iraq which is why everyone wants nukes. The US's mistake was not taking Israel to task for developing nukes, now the US has no moral high ground and is just seen as a bully. Just looking at the modern history of Iran, its not surprising they want nukes with all the interference they have had from Russia, Britain and the US. As for engaging with Iran, the Bush administration has refused to engage with them. One of Bush's aids with responsibilty for Iran admited on radio they other day he had never met an Iranian in his official capacity. I don't support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, therefore I don't support the troops. I don't support the US patrolling to border between South and North Korea. Bring them all home and station them on our borders, including 10 Million land minds. Let that great institution, the UN, solve the outstanding issues. This time without the US in the lead. Bush has never taken the lead on anything but Iraq where he has been proved wrong. He has refused to talk to Iran and Korea and the Palestinians, he has withdrawn from just about every international treaty of note and refuses to participate in international initiatives such as the ICC. Lets just sit there like the rest pontificating about human rights and accomplishing nothing but wasting time while Korea and Iran grow stronger. We are far enough away to enjoy the beautiful sunsets that come in the afterglow of far away nuclear bombs exploding. Maybe when they beg us enough to again take an active role we'll consider it. Iran and Korea aren't growing stronger but US withdrawal will make a resurgent Russia happy I'm sure the response to this will be that the US, specifically President Bush, caused the problems so it's our responsibility to solve them. What a great way for the US to always be at fault. If the world is so tired of being forced to follow US dogma regarding democracy and freedom, let them have the opportunity to do better. No US intervention, and of course no US dollars. We'll supply the same lip service support until the action fails and then we'll offer the same head shake and Monday morning quarterbacking while saying; "I told you that wouldn't work". I don't think the US has made all the problems and what problems there are, the blame should be shared with the rest of the west. As for Bush, well yes, he has proved clueless. He seems to think the only way to solve a problem is refusing to talk to his adversaries while accusing them of being evil through a megaphone and threatening to bomb them. While shooting first might be a way to deal with terrorists it is hardly a fruitful way of dealing with a country that isn't going to disappear overnight.

popeye1250 -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 9:02:22 AM)
Well, whatever happens the people in Washington need to start saying "NO" to all these foreign countries and their demands for "Foreign Aid." The U.S. Taxpayers are getting FED UP!

SirKenin -> RE: Korea. Now what? (10/10/2006 9:33:47 AM)
North Korea is going to be another Vietnam. You watch. I say nuke them now and get it over with. Screw this morality crap. If Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can do it, why not the US? A couple of nukes on Kim Jong Il's head ought to smarten him up. I would say drop a couple on China while you are at it, but it is a bit complicated when China is the USA's main trading partner and without a China there would be no Wal-mart. Can not have that.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125