PDA

View Full Version : N. Korea acknowledges it has nuclear weapons



Milesblue42
02-10-2005, 04:08 AM
Now What ? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/)

Now what do we do ?

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 04:19 AM
should be interesting what the hypocrites say<font color="white[/img]Should be interesting what they say after reading what I just posted. </font>
probably let the UN handle it.<font color="white[/img]all those reasons for iraq WTF. idiots talk about freedom. can't even leave N.Korea</font>

MOMO831
02-10-2005, 04:32 AM
Hummmm...well N Korea doesn't have any oil. But Jorge Bush ain't no punk. Now that C Powell left I'm sure Coni Rice will raise hell for Jorgi poo. Don't expect any Christmass cards from N Korea I'm sure American has been crossed off that list.

Lord_Vader
02-10-2005, 05:03 AM
They are just looking for more handouts. Too bad their sugar daddy Clinton is gone. This is just international extortion. If I were Bush, I'd say "Yeah, well so do we and there are more than a few pointing at North Korea. If so much as one warhead produced by North Korea is spotted anywhere except in clear view of our satellites in the middle of North Korea, it is an act of war."

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 05:44 AM
Huh. Next thing you know Bush is going to accuse Venezuela of having NBCs <font color="white[/img]and too much oil for Castro</font>
All the brain-washed will just nod and agree to what FOX reports <font color="white[/img]and do what Goering would do.white txt?=0</font>
No NBCs? Oh, well then, we'll just liberate these people <font color="white[/img] and say stuff like "freedom" and "democracy"</font>

armalite
02-10-2005, 06:46 AM
Huh. Next thing you know Bush is going to accuse Venezuela of having NBCs <font color="white[/img]and too much oil for Castro</font>
All the brain-washed will just nod and agree to what FOX reports <font color="white[/img]and do what Goering would do.white txt?=0</font>
No NBCs? Oh, well then, we'll just liberate these people <font color="white[/img] and say stuff like "freedom" and "democracy"</font>



The NBC'S don't worry me as much as if they had some CBS's, then I think it would be okay for Bush to launch a strike against them to teach some something about their ABC's.

Kim_Jong_Il
02-10-2005, 09:01 AM
What if they start stockpiling PBS's or, GASP, MSNBC'S &amp; CSPANii's?

Be afraid of me.

24Dee
02-10-2005, 09:11 AM
Great Job UN! http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif

Magellan
02-10-2005, 09:54 AM
The Bush administration has already stated that they intend to deal with this diplomatically. Our best bet is to continue to isolate them until their economy completely folds and this punk dictator is overthrown. We need China to help us in this. With our ever-increasing trade with China and their need to maintain good relations with the world and us in general, they may give us the cooperation we need.

Lord_Vader
02-10-2005, 10:21 AM
You would think that China would be leading the charge in this. North Korea sits on their border.

The real issue is that we (Clinton) gave into them last time. We paid them to stop their nuke program. They have no economy so the "aid" was very beneficial to them. So now they have run out of money again and need another influx of "aid". That's the only reason they are so defiant and outspoken toward the United States. We are probably the only ones who would actually pay to get them to shut up. Let them try that crap with China. The whole Korean peninsula would become a province of China.

Replicant_s14
02-10-2005, 11:16 AM
Our best bet is to continue to isolate them until their economy completely folds and this punk dictator overthrown.



It's a dilemma though. If they're isolated ....and deperate, they now have nukes available to sell to people who would be far more likely to actually use them.

Wahhaj
02-10-2005, 11:27 AM
The question we must ask is - why is it that they believe we are being hostile towards them? - Secondly, they need to sit down and discuss this in a diplomatic way. They cant keep rejecting diplomacy on the basis that the US is being hostile!

Lord_Vader
02-10-2005, 11:39 AM
The question we must ask is - why is it that they believe we are being hostile towards them?



I really believe that it is good old fashioned propaganda. It helps him to keep his people in line and portrays N.Korea as a victim to try and gain protection from the U.N.. Meanwhile, they start some activity around their Nuke facilities so we can see it and hope that we will pay them off again. It is simply just extortion. They want us to pay them to not develop nukes. They have no economy to speak of. They have infrastructure issues. They need money to feed their own people. Instead of requesting foriegn aid, they come up with this extortion. Plain and simple.

Lord_Vader
02-10-2005, 11:44 AM
You know Castro did some similar crap back in the day. He approached the U.S. for help and we denied him. He then suddenly became a communist and requested aid/protection from the Soviets. Then we tried to take over his Government and the rest is history so to speak.

Like I said if I were president, I would send a clear message to N.Korea that there will be no payoffs/bribes. I would remind them that they are not the only country that has a military capacity (not a threat, but a call on their bluff). I would also let them know that if nuclear material ever makes its way out of their possesion, that it would be grounds for war. (Aiding a terrorist organization). With all that being said, I would expose him for the international thug that he is. Tell the people of North Korea that aid will be forthcoming once there is a change in Government (not likely to happen since they worship him as a superstar).

Magellan
02-10-2005, 02:12 PM
Our best bet is to continue to isolate them until their economy completely folds and this punk dictator overthrown.



It's a dilemma though. If they're isolated ....and deperate, they now have nukes available to sell to people who would be far more likely to actually use them.


Your fear is well founded. I have no solution other than declaring war on North Korea and wiping them out. I donít believe the American public would support that. Iím not sure even I do. And then thereís Iran, where the problem is similar.

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 02:37 PM
I donít believe the American public would support that.


http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/confused.gif

M_TYPE_X
02-10-2005, 03:11 PM
I donít believe the American public would support that.


http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/confused.gif



Ummm, buddy, we just convinced them to bend over for Bush of Arabia to take on Afghanistan AND Iraq... and send their kids into the militar ... get a clue. Silly hippies.

Vader's right. They will implode. Just don't give them any money, food, or other support.

Magellan
02-10-2005, 04:23 PM
Now letís not rewrite history here. Bush has not given any money to North Korea. It was Clinton. How could you get the two mixed up?

As far as Cleveland or Detroit is concerned, if terrorists destroy one of these cities with an atomic device they purchased from North Korea, how does that help them?

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 04:30 PM
Ummm, buddy, we just convinced them to bend over for Bush of Arabia to take on Afghanistan AND Iraq... and send their kids into the militar ... get a clue. Silly hippies.



that's why the http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/confused.gif, especially coming out of him.
Anyone who was against Iraq he just does what Goering would do. Now he has the never to say "the american public would not support this".

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 04:33 PM
Now letís not rewrite history here.



See, here is another one.

Magellan
02-10-2005, 05:11 PM
Now letís not rewrite history here.



See, here is another one.


What hell are you talking about? The American public still supports the war in Iraq; not as much as it did two years ago I admit, but itís still above 50%.

And to suggest the Bush administration has given money to North Korea IS rewriting history.

How about discussing the issues instead of taking cheap shots by comparing me to Nazis?

Irie_eyes
02-10-2005, 05:17 PM
Yea right. You really want to discuss the issues.
Nearly every issue from you ends with the conclusion that it's the democrats fault.
If you are going to be closed-minded about it then what is the point of discussing it.
All I see is you trying to "denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

M_TYPE_X
02-10-2005, 05:54 PM
I don't want to discuss the issues...

... I want to research them and publish long boring studies.
I am actively considering going for a masters in political science (international security politics of course). http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

futureXterra
02-10-2005, 06:32 PM
What hell are you talking about? The American public still supports the war in Iraq; not as much as it did two years ago I admit, but itís still above 50%.




I'd rather you not say what you did above. As long as 100% are not supportive of a "thing", whatever it might be, you cannot label ALL as being supportive. You could say a majority of the American public support the thing.

Additionally, there is no longer a "formal war" being fought in Iraq. I personally support "our troops" in any humanitarian endeavor, but I do not support a war that was being waged, ostensibly, to oust a tyrannical, merciless dictator, when in fact there were "other motivations". No WMD, c'mon, how could we miss that? Why were we really there? I understand why we now still have to be there...but the US is not the world police, though we are a part of the world police.

The worst part of all this is that our country is gonna go bankrupt from spending all our resources on war. We are going to end up being a Third World Country ourselves if we keep up this trend.

Let the flames begin!

Twiga
02-10-2005, 06:52 PM
Looks like the brink of Nuclear War or a Nuclear Attack.

Magellan
02-10-2005, 07:19 PM
What hell are you talking about? The American public still supports the war in Iraq; not as much as it did two years ago I admit, but itís still above 50%.




I'd rather you not say what you did above. As long as 100% are not supportive of a "thing", whatever it might be, you cannot label ALL as being supportive. You could say a majority of the American public support the thing.

Additionally, there is no longer a "formal war" being fought in Iraq. I personally support "our troops" in any humanitarian endeavor, but I do not support a war that was being waged, ostensibly, to oust a tyrannical, merciless dictator, when in fact there were "other motivations". No WMD, c'mon, how could we miss that? Why were we really there? I understand why we now still have to be there...but the US is not the world police, though we are a part of the world police.

The worst part of all this is that our country is gonna go bankrupt from spending all our resources on war. We are going to end up being a Third World Country ourselves if we keep up this trend.

Let the flames begin!


Well, Iíll surprise you here. I should have said the majority of Americans support the war instead of implying all Americans. As far as your other comments, weíve hashed this out many times now on this forum so thereís nothing new to offer.

'87 Sentra
02-11-2005, 12:28 AM
Looks like the brink of Nuclear War or a Nuclear Attack.



This is exactly what Bush would like everyone to believe, that way he can keep "policing" the world the way he has so far.

Enceladus
02-11-2005, 12:46 AM
What hell are you talking about? The American public still supports the war in Iraq; not as much as it did two years ago I admit, but itís still above 50%.




I'd rather you not say what you did above. As long as 100% are not supportive of a "thing", whatever it might be, you cannot label ALL as being supportive. You could say a majority of the American public support the thing.

Additionally, there is no longer a "formal war" being fought in Iraq. I personally support "our troops" in any humanitarian endeavor, but I do not support a war that was being waged, ostensibly, to oust a tyrannical, merciless dictator, when in fact there were "other motivations". No WMD, c'mon, how could we miss that? Why were we really there? I understand why we now still have to be there...but the US is not the world police, though we are a part of the world police.

The worst part of all this is that our country is gonna go bankrupt from spending all our resources on war. We are going to end up being a Third World Country ourselves if we keep up this trend.

Let the flames begin!


Well, Iíll surprise you here. I should have said the majority of Americans support the war instead of implying all Americans. As far as your other comments, weíve hashed this out many times now on this forum so thereís nothing new to offer.

Also, I didn't want to bring this up, but... you used a comma wrong before. Try not to let it happen again buddy.

Enceladus
02-11-2005, 12:53 AM
Looks like the brink of Nuclear War or a Nuclear Attack.



This is exactly what Bush would like everyone to believe, that way he can keep "policing" the world the way he has so far.


When did Bush ever say that?

....Oh thats right, he didn't.

I have a hard time picturing what life must be like for people who think everything is a conspiracy.

Do you eat your cereal under your kitchen table in case Bush bombs your house?

Do you wear a tin foil hat so he can't read your mind using the telepathic powers the patriot act granted him?

WAIT!! TURN AROUND!! BUSH IS THERE BEHIND YOU!!!!!

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 02:57 AM
Nearly every issue from you ends with the conclusion that it's the democrats fault.




Whether or not, in this case he is correct. Clinton did pay off the N. Koreans last time they started their nuclear program. I'll google for an article and post if I find one.

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 04:27 AM
Suddenly I feel like NewsReporter for posting political articles. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif





North Korea Nukes Clinton Legacy
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003
Asian Arms Race Result of Appeasement Policy


The leftist media spin is that the current crisis in North Asia is the result of George W. Bush calling Pyongyang a member of the 'axis of evil.' In reality, the soft-line appeasement policy taken by Clinton against North Korea and China is what has led us to this point.

For example, former Clinton adviser Paul Begala, now serving as a talking head on CNN, claimed that the Clinton administration contained the threat from North Korea. Clearly, Mr. Begala missed the 1990s.

Of course, Mr. Begala simply forgot that Clinton's military chief of staff testified in 1998 that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast.

During the early Clinton years, hard-liners and so-called conservative hawks advocated a pre-emptive strike to halt North Korea's nuclear weapons development before it could field an atomic bomb. Instead of taking the hard line, President Clinton elected to rely on former President Jimmy Carter and decided to appease the Marxist-Stalinist dictatorship.

Carter met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang and returned to America waving a piece of paper and declaring peace in our time. Kim, according to Carter, had agreed to stop his nuclear weapons development.

The Clinton appeasement program for North Korea included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, food, oil and even a nuclear reactor. However, the agreement was flawed and lacked even the most informal means of verification.

In return, Kim elected to starve his people while using the American aid to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the U.S. aid program.

Axis of Evil and Friends

North Korea was not left all alone in its effort to obtain nuclear weapons. North Korea relied heavily on China, its closest ally, to assist in its all-out effort to obtain the atomic bomb.

Beijing elected to covertly aid its North Asian ally by proliferation. China allowed Pakistan to send nuclear technology purchased from Beijing to North Korea in exchange for No Dong missile technology.

Beijing provided Pakistan with its nuclear weapons technology, including an operational atomic bomb design. Pakistan is now providing North Korea with equipment and engineering to assist in its bomb-making efforts.

The fact remains that North Korea acquired some key equipment for its nuclear weapons program from Pakistan in 1998. The key equipment, including a working gas centrifuge used to enrich uranium, was shipped to Pyongyang in the coffin of the murdered wife of a North Korean diplomat.

Beijing's indirect assistance includes allowing Pakistani C-130 cargo flights over China to Pyongyang that carry key equipment for nuclear weapons production. The flights return to Pakistan with North Korean No Dong missile parts.

Missiles for Nukes

Pakistan also benefited from the trade in weaponry. The missiles-for-nukes trade gave Pakistan an operational means to deliver its atomic bombs.

Pakistan has since successfully test-fired and deployed its own version of the No Dong missile, called the Ghauri. The North Korean-designed missile has a range of nearly 900 miles and can cover virtually all of India, Pakistan's rival in Southwest Asia.

The ultimate irony here is that the North Korean No Dong and Tae Po Dong missiles are based on technology given to Pyongyang by China. In 1994, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Chinese-made CSS-2 missile technology had found its way into North Korean hands.

China has also allowed North Korea to ship SCUD missiles through its territory for Middle Eastern customers. According to a Canadian undercover operative, North Korean agents moved dismantled SCUD missiles through China into Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

The allegations proved to be correct because U.S. satellites were able to follow Chinese-made M-11 missiles bound for Pakistan over the same land route in 2000. The illegal export of M-11 missiles brought swift sanctions against Beijing by the Bush administration.

In recent months China has been much more overt about assisting Pyongyang with its nuclear weapons program. In 2002, China sold Pyongyang a large shipment of tributyl phosphate, a key chemical used to extract plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods for atomic bombs.

U.S. Pressure on Asian Allies

In contrast, the U.S. repeatedly told India, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan that they should not develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. position was that the no one had the right to bring a new arms race to Asia.

The U.S. also backed up this policy by placing severe restrictions on the export of nuclear and ballistic missile technology to India, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. The trade agreements also had teeth built into them in case U.S. technology was abused.

For example, when India developed and tested its nuclear bomb, the U.S. responded with hefty sanctions and a diplomatic freeze that is just now beginning to thaw.

Compared to the strict U.S. policy, China did not discourage its client states, North Korea and Pakistan, from developing nuclear weapons. Instead, China has overtly and covertly assisted both nations to develop and deploy active weapons upon working delivery systems.

Nature abhors a vacuum, especially in the case of nuclear weapons. The whole equation of Asian defense has changed overnight. As a result of China's nuclear proliferation, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may now have to follow Pyongyang's lead and begin their own atomic weapons programs. That decision will be made in Tokyo, Seoul and Taipei, not in Washington.

It should shock no one, including the China lobby and DNC apologists, that Beijing will continue to support North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

However, some fools continue to be suckered by Beijing's obvious ploy to dominate Asia. The fools' hope that China will restrain Pyongyang continues to echo off the lips of the leftist media, as if by simply wishing it were true will make it so.

The fact remains that Bill Clinton's legacy is an unstable world filled with hungry dictators and nuclear weapons. The result of the Clinton appeasement policy toward China is a new arms race.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml



More...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/Ldotvets/Bubba_99_35.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/North-Korea/Clinton-calls-for-aid-to-end-arms-crisis/2003/11/07/1068013344855.html?oneclick=true
http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/000544.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/clintondole/main549987.shtml

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 04:31 AM
Not to spam anyone, but here is a good editorial.



THE CLINTON PAPER CHASE
By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
October 25, 2002
During the Clinton administration, which of these deserving nations became the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region?

(a) The Philippines, longtime friend and ally.

(b) Indonesia, moderate, Muslim and developing.

(c) Cambodia, impoverished and rebuilding.

(d) North Korea, a deranged Stalinist dictatorship that feeds its million-man army while starving its people, that sells ballistic missiles to America's worst enemies and that is building nuclear weapons.

Did I tip my hand?

The great divide in American foreign policy thinking is between those who believe in paper and those who believe in power. The paper school was in charge of the 1990s.

In the 1990s the main objective of Clinton foreign policy was to get as many signatures as possible on as many pieces of paper as possible promising peace and brotherhood. There was a mania for treaties -- on chemical and biological weapons, nuclear proliferation and testing, land mines, antiballistic missiles, climate control. And, of course, treaties with mortal enemies.

One of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration was the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Clinton assured us that it froze the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea gave us a piece of paper promising to freeze; we gave North Korea 500,000 tons of free oil every year and set about building -- also for free -- two huge $2 billion nuclear power plants that supposedly could be used only to produce electricity. Japan and South Korea were induced to give tons of foreign aid as well, Clinton being the committed multilateralist, even in extortion.

It turns out the North Koreans took the loot and lied. Surprise! All the while they were enriching uranium. They now brazenly admit to having a nuclear weapons program and other weapons of mass destruction.

Jimmy Carter just won a Nobel Peace Prize for, among other things, his 1994 intervention with the North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung that led to this agreement. Carter had returned from his talks in Pyongyang declaring, "The crisis is over." He was missing only the umbrella. (Carter also enthused that "there is an incredible reverence and exaltation of President Kim Il Sung," author of one of the most grotesque police states in all of history.)

At the time, the New York Times enthusiastically applauded this achievement of peace in our time ("Nuclear Breakthrough in Korea") and praised "U.S. negotiator Robert Gallucci and his North Korean interlocutors" for having "defied impatient hawks and other skeptics who accused the Clinton administration of gullibility and urged swifter, stronger action."

At the time, in this space, I called the agreement "worse than dangerous, it is shameful" and suggested that it should have been signed on the battleship Missouri, as it amounted to unconditional surrender.

Eight years and a few North Korean nukes later, the Times has seen the light. It concludes a deeply disappointed editorial with this priceless discovery: "Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of dictators who want them requires more than signed agreements."

The North Korean fiasco was not the only Clintonian attempt at paper diplomacy. The bloodiest farce was the Oslo "peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. President Clinton insisted that it be signed on the White House lawn under his upraised arms. He then spent the next seven years brokering one new agreement after another while declaring the peace irreversible. He knew it was so because Yasser Arafat had promised -- in writing -- an end to violence and terrorism. Then Arafat decided to start up the violence and terrorism in September 2000, bringing on the worst Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed in this hundred-year war and leaving the Clinton paper-pushers surprised.

This is not that hard to figure out. Living by paper -- contracts and laws and courts and binding agreements -- is lovely. It's what makes domestic society civilized and decent. The problem is that the international arena is not domestic society. It is a jungle. It is a state of nature. At home, autoworkers make peace with GM with a signed agreement. That doesn't work with Kim Il Sung, or with his deranged son Kim Jong Il.

Agreements with them or Arafat or Saddam Hussein are not worth the paper they are written on. Laboring over every jot and tittle -- the life work of our paper-pushing peace processors -- is quite mad. The beginning of wisdom is giving up this supremely naive belief in paper.

It is not the end of wisdom, to be sure. It does not answer all questions. But it will keep us from repeating the disasters of the delusional '90s, disasters that haunt our sleep now and will haunt us for decades to come.

http://www.realdemocracy.com/paprchas.htm

Irie_eyes
02-11-2005, 05:01 AM
wow, and I was told that my sources was too biased.
Soooo....Bush is going to do the same as Clinton, correct?

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 05:53 AM
wow, and I was told that my sources was too biased.
Soooo....Bush is going to do the same as Clinton, correct?



There's a regular news link in there somewhere. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope you don't think I was trying to single you out. (That was not my intent) I just wanted to demonstrate North Korea's true motives.

moorefire
02-11-2005, 07:23 AM
Nearly every issue from you ends with the conclusion that it's the democrats fault.




Whether or not, in this case he is correct. Clinton did pay off the N. Koreans last time they started their nuclear program. I'll google for an article and post if I find one.



And now Bush is paying off Pakistan and looking the other way after they provided them with the technology in the first place. If W wasn't resorting to fear tactics like the "axis of evil" BS to scare up support among the sheep to support pre-emptive regime change then Korea wouldn't feel so threatened and there would be a greater chance of them imploding, like MTX said, on their own without us having to intervene.

PS, I don't want to hear any more whining from the messenger shooting nitwits about left leaning sources after seeing newsmax and heritige.org articles here

armalite
02-11-2005, 08:44 AM
Nearly every issue from you ends with the conclusion that it's the democrats fault.




Whether or not, in this case he is correct. Clinton did pay off the N. Koreans last time they started their nuclear program. I'll google for an article and post if I find one.



And now Bush is paying off Pakistan and looking the other way after they provided them with the technology in the first place. If W wasn't resorting to fear tactics like the "axis of evil" BS to scare up support among the sheep to support pre-emptive regime change then Korea wouldn't feel so threatened and there would be a greater chance of them imploding, like MTX said, on their own without us having to intervene.

PS, I don't want to hear any more whining from the messenger shooting nitwits about left leaning sources after seeing newsmax and heritige.org articles here




Think you have something wrong their pal, it's the ones on the Left who are the sheep, not the right. You can call the right followers if you want but they are not sheep. Sheep = cowardice you find that on the left.

moorefire
02-11-2005, 08:57 AM
Think you have something wrong their pal, it's the ones on the Left who are the sheep, not the right. You can call the right followers if you want but they are not sheep. Sheep = cowardice you find that on the left.


Touchy are we? I wasn't calling the right sheep. I was calling the yes men sheep. Yes men can be found on the right and the left. But since you like to make the us and them divisions, it could be said that diplomats that send our troops to war without proper planning and knowing full well that the fundamental drawbacks of bureaucracy will lead to the unnecessary deaths of many are the real cowards.

M_TYPE_X
02-11-2005, 08:59 AM
Couple o' Korean academics have published an article in Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com)
that says we're not to be alarmed. And don't pull the troops out of South Korea, they're our "friends."

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 09:15 AM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKoreaBomb2/images/cagle00p.gif

Lord_Vader
02-11-2005, 09:20 AM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKoreaBomb2/images/catalino.gif

armalite
02-11-2005, 09:22 AM
Think you have something wrong their pal, it's the ones on the Left who are the sheep, not the right. You can call the right followers if you want but they are not sheep. Sheep = cowardice you find that on the left.


Touchy are we? I wasn't calling the right sheep. I was calling the yes men sheep. Yes men can be found on the right and the left. But since you like to make the us and them divisions, it could be said that diplomats that send our troops to war without proper planning and knowing full well that the fundamental drawbacks of bureaucracy will lead to the unnecessary deaths of many are the real cowards.



I was just correcting your us vs them statement about sheep.

moorefire
02-11-2005, 09:34 AM
no

You were simply stating your misinterpretation of my statement due to your "us vs. them" mentality (so clearly illustrated by the fact you think the left are cowards.)

I wasnít the one trying to blame this on the democrats or the republicans. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that they're all *****s and pointing fingers at one side is dangerously narrow-minded. You completely missed the point, and took offence.

Try to not be so sensitive and Iíll try to be more clear for you next time buddy.


http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Nismo
02-11-2005, 09:52 AM
America's foreign policy in a nutshell: "No Oil? No war."

Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html) - Radio Address by the President to the Nation (www.whitehouse.gov)

Replicant_s14
02-11-2005, 10:19 AM
America's foreign policy in a nutshell: "No Oil? No war."

Iraqi Regime Danger to America is "Grave and Growing" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html) - Radio Address by the President to the Nation (www.whitehouse.gov)



Right. Cuz history started when Bush was sworn in and no one here, or in other nations thought Saddam was a threat before that. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Salvador
02-11-2005, 10:38 AM
Kim-- I'll let you drive my Z06 if you disarm. It has a very nice seat height adjuster. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sal

Nismo
02-11-2005, 01:16 PM
IRAQ
Evil dictator? CHECK
Threat to the region? CHECK
Threat to American interests? CHECK
Believed to be trying to get Nuclear weapons? CHECK
Believed to already have Nuclear weapons? NEGATIVE
Has a crapload of oil? CHECK
Worth going to war for "Security, Freedom, Liberty, &lt;insert more propaganda here&gt;" YES

NORTH KOREA
Evil dictator? CHECK
Threat to the region? CHECK
Threat to American interests? CHECK
Believed to be trying to get Nuclear weapons? CHECK
Believed to alrady have Nuclear weapons? CHECK
Has a crapload of oil? NEGATIVE
Worth going to war for "Security, Freedom, Liberty, &lt;insert more propaganda here&gt;" NO WAY!!!

People who believed in the war from the beginning have been coming up with new excuses every few months as to why it was the right thing to do, but facts are facts: America is always willing to fight for money (a.k.a.--oil), but we are rarely willing to fight for freedom of the oppressed--unless it involves money, of course. Go capitalism!! http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Replicant_s14
02-11-2005, 01:40 PM
People who believed in the war from the beginning have been coming up with new excuses every few months as to why it was the right thing to do, but facts are facts: America is always willing to fight for money (a.k.a.--oil), but we are rarely willing to fight for freedom of the oppressed--unless it involves money, of course. Go capitalism!! http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif



So, you think we should ....or should not tangle with N.K.? I'm just trying to get where you're going with all of that.

Release
02-11-2005, 07:11 PM
Chinaís traditional stake in North Korea has rested in keeping the regime afloat as a geostrategic buffer against U.S. influence on Chinaís border.

Taiwan might also cross the nuclear threshold if the countryís leaders see North Korea successfully guaranteeing its security this way. While the rest of Asia provides Chinaís economic lifeblood, Beijing continues to throw good money, food, and fuel down a rat hole in North Korea

Irie_eyes
02-11-2005, 10:41 PM
There's a regular news link in there somewhere.

I hope you don't think I was trying to single you out. (That was not my intent) I just wanted to demonstrate North Korea's true motives.



No I wasn't. http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
if someone screams at me for biased material, they better not be biased in their screaming.

Milesblue42
02-12-2005, 04:59 PM
People who believed in the war from the beginning have been coming up with new excuses every few months as to why it was the right thing to do, but facts are facts: America is always willing to fight for money (a.k.a.--oil), but we are rarely willing to fight for freedom of the oppressed--unless it involves money, of course. Go capitalism!! http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/smile.gif



So, you think we should ....or should not tangle with N.K.? I'm just trying to get where you're going with all of that.



The part that confuses me is the reason we give North Korea for not having one on one talks is because its a regional issue, but when it comes to military action we can act unilateraly http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/confused.gif As far as NK being a threat to us, maybe, maybe not, if he is really a threat and a crazed madman as people say why wouldnt he attack our troops right on his border or any of our interests ( bases, etc ) in the region ?

Lord_Vader
02-12-2005, 05:24 PM
We don't want to have unilaterial talks with North Korea because we don't want to end up holding the cheque. N. Korea know that we are the only ones that will pay them to stop there Nuke program.

We can't attack because all of spare troops are tied up in combat.

The only thing we can do is keep stalling, hence no action.

Lord_Vader
02-13-2005, 12:05 PM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKoreaBomb2/images/ohmanfg.gif

Enceladus
02-13-2005, 02:29 PM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKoreaBomb2/images/ohmanfg.gif


lol

M_TYPE_X
02-13-2005, 05:39 PM
We don't want to have unilaterial talks with North Korea because we don't want to end up holding the cheque. N. Korea know that we are the only ones that will pay them to stop there Nuke program.

We can't attack because all of spare troops are tied up in combat.

The only thing we can do is keep stalling, hence no action.



Excellent concise analysis of the situation.

Enceladus
02-14-2005, 03:24 AM
We don't want to have unilaterial talks with North Korea because we don't want to end up holding the cheque. N. Korea know that we are the only ones that will pay them to stop there Nuke program.

We can't attack because all of spare troops are tied up in combat.

The only thing we can do is keep stalling, hence no action.



Excellent concise analysis of the situation.


I find it interesting that after NK seems to disappear from the media for a week or two they issue another threat "in response" to a "u.s. threat." http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/rolleyes1.gif The biggest threat to them is getting ignored.

Kim_Jong_Il
02-14-2005, 11:27 AM
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/NorthKoreaBomb2/images/ohmanfg.gif



HEY!!! No one was supposed to know about that... http://forums.freshalloy.com/images/graemlins/tear.gif

Lord_Vader
02-15-2005, 06:07 AM
I thought this was a good article. (I don't think it is biased either)



What Does North Korea Want?
After months of mixed signals, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il says his country has nuclear weapons. Here's how the U.S. hopes to persuade him to give them up

Sunday, Feb. 13, 2005


Kim Jong Il has long taken a personal interest in staging North Korea's biggest celebration: his birthday. Typically, Feb. 16 is marked by fireworks displays, mass loyalty pledges, forced pilgrimages to Kim's mountaintop birthplace and the sudden appearance of food--gift bags of candy and cookies for the children unlucky enough to be born in such an isolated, impoverished and tyrannical land.

But Kim has outdone himself this year. Days before his 63rd birthday this week, his government announced that, as has long been suspected by U.S. intelligence, North Korea has indeed built nuclear weapons "for self-defense." Though the bulletin ended years of speculation about the general state of Kim's nuclear-weapons program, the declaration was actually two blows in one: Pyongyang also announced it was pulling out of joint talks with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, hoping to play down the news, called the announcement "unfortunate."

It is a lot more than that. For more than a decade, the U.S. and its allies have insisted that they would not allow Kim to acquire nuclear weapons, out of fear that he would sell nukes to anyone willing to pay for them and set off an Asian arms race. Pyongyang's declaration, while impossible to confirm, means Kim has probably realized his quest. A nuclear-armed North Korea means that President Bush's multilateral strategy for preventing Pyongyang from acquiring nukes has failed just as dramatically as Clinton's policy of direct engagement did a decade ago. It means that even when they are united, Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul and Washington haven't found the right combination of levers to halt nuclear proliferation by a rogue state. And it probably means that even if the U.S. and its allies can coax Pyongyang back into negotiations--a big if--their hand is weakened by what the declaration described as Kim's "arsenal." At a time when the Bush Administration is trying to increase pressure on Iran over its purported ambitions to obtain the bomb, Washington confronts a more immediate crisis with a country that claims to have it already.

North Korea has been doing an elaborate fan dance about its nuclear assets for so long that many experts assumed it had gone nuclear months or even years ago. All that was lacking was an official confirmation, and so when that came, speculation centered on why Kim had decided to come clean. North Korea's 1,100-word declaration argues that the country had little choice but to brandish its weapons after several weeks of warmongering by Washington. It cited comments by the President in his Inaugural Address and Secretary Rice in her confirmation hearings--Rice labeled Korea an "outpost of tyranny"--which to Kim's ears sounded like calls for regime change.

But there was another explanation for the announcement: Pyongyang needed to change the subject. Two weeks ago, the White House secretly dispatched two National Security Council (NSC) aides to Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul armed with evidence that North Korea may have supplied a uranium compound to Libya for its weapons labs. The gaseous compound, known as uranium hexafluoride (UF6), is a precursor to bomb-grade uranium, something bombmakers feed into centrifuges to harvest the highly fissionable isotope uranium-235 (U-235) that is at the heart of an atom bomb. Though UF6 is hard to make, it's possible to track: forensic tests focus on trace isotopes, such as U-234, whose prevalence differs from country to country and even from mine to mine. After the U.S. gained access to Tripoli's bombmaking labs a year ago, it ran tests on the UF6 it found there. U.S. officials would not connect all the dots, but one told TIME the fuel from Libya bore "a very clear signature" that pointed to North Korea.

The new U.S. evidence was rushed to officials in Beijing, who have tolerated Pyongyang's denials that it has a UF6 processing facility. The U.S. intelligence made that view seem dangerously naive. If North Korea was producing enough UF6 to export to Libya, it surely had enough for its weapons labs at home. There is some evidence that North Korea sold its UF6 not directly to Libya but via the black-market bazaar of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. That means that North Korea may not have known where its UF6 was going when it sold it, says Gordon Flake, a North Korea analyst at the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs. The new UF6 evidence was apparently strong enough to help the two NSC aides, Michael Green and William Tobey, win an audience with Chinese President Hu Jintao two weeks ago. U.S. officials would not detail Hu's reaction to the briefing, but one told TIME, "It made an impression."

But that hasn't led to much clarity about what to do. Two questions occupy the Bush team's sometimes highly divided proliferation squads: Just what is the nature of Pyongyang's arsenal? And what, if anything, can be done about it? The type and number of weapons Kim has remain unknown. Most analysts think the count is fewer than a dozen. Size actually matters more than quantity: the smaller the warhead, the easier it is to mount it in an airplane or atop a missile. Several of Pyongyang's medium-range systems, if operational, could reach Japan; one long-range weapon could theoretically reach Alaska.

What alternatives does the U.S. have? Given that a pre-emptive military strike against potential weapons sites would be fraught with complications--who knows how the situation might escalate, especially considering North Korea's substantial conventional arsenal--even anti-Kim hard-liners acknowledge that diplomacy remains the most palatable option. Kim repeated his demand last week for bilateral negotiations with Washington, a prospect the Administration rejects out of hand. The U.S. still hopes to confront the North Koreans in a multilateral setting, and the linchpin of that strategy is China. Bush has long believed that Beijing has the most to gain and lose on the Korean peninsula and would quietly pressure Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Beijing has been North Korea's closest ally, funneling oil and food. China would have to absorb many refugees if Kim's regime failed.

In the wake of Pyongyang's latest fulminations, the Administration is counting on China to drag the North Koreans back to the six-party table--a role China embraced in a phone call between Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Secretary Rice on Saturday night. "China will stay in touch with all relevant parties," Li told her. James Lilley, who was ambassador to both China and South Korea in the 1980s, says Pyongyang's tactics are designed to stall for time and force concessions from outsiders before sitting down to talk again. The only way to counter it, he believes, is to take swift action both jointly and alone. Japan, he argues, could cut off all shipping; South Korea could halt its many industrial and tourism projects with the North; the U.S. could again press for economic sanctions at the U.N. And the Chinese, Lilley says, could "go to the North Koreans, put their arms around their shoulders, kiss them on both cheeks and then whisper in their ears, 'Oh, by the way, your oil? We're gonna cut it 10% a month.'" Says Lilley: "Lets see what happens then. My bet is you'll see fuming and lots of shaking fists and million-man parades, and then they'll come to the table."

That may be the best bet for averting a crisis. But China has yet to sign on to a hard line. Beijing last month sent a Foreign Ministry diplomat to Pyongyang to discuss restarting the talks but never threatened to cut off aid. Its official returned without a deal and convinced that the North's resolve was unbreakable. "Even if China cuts aid," says a member of China's foreign policy establishment who was briefed on the meetings, "they will not weaken." Unless the U.S. and its allies get tough and together in a hurry, the world may soon find itself worried less about how fast Kim is building nuclear bombs than about how we're going to live with them. --Reported by Matt Forney/Beijing, Jim Frederick/Tokyo, Donald Macintyre/Seoul and Elaine Shannon/Washington

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1027498-1,00.html

Milesblue42
02-15-2005, 09:28 AM
I thought this was a good article. (I don't think it is biased either)



What Does North Korea Want?
After months of mixed signals, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il says his country has nuclear weapons. Here's how the U.S. hopes to persuade him to give them up

Sunday, Feb. 13, 2005


Kim Jong Il has long taken a personal interest in staging North Korea's biggest celebration: his birthday. Typically, Feb. 16 is marked by fireworks displays, mass loyalty pledges, forced pilgrimages to Kim's mountaintop birthplace and the sudden appearance of food--gift bags of candy and cookies for the children unlucky enough to be born in such an isolated, impoverished and tyrannical land.

But Kim has outdone himself this year. Days before his 63rd birthday this week, his government announced that, as has long been suspected by U.S. intelligence, North Korea has indeed built nuclear weapons "for self-defense." Though the bulletin ended years of speculation about the general state of Kim's nuclear-weapons program, the declaration was actually two blows in one: Pyongyang also announced it was pulling out of joint talks with the U.S., China, Japan, Russia and South Korea to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, hoping to play down the news, called the announcement "unfortunate."

It is a lot more than that. For more than a decade, the U.S. and its allies have insisted that they would not allow Kim to acquire nuclear weapons, out of fear that he would sell nukes to anyone willing to pay for them and set off an Asian arms race. Pyongyang's declaration, while impossible to confirm, means Kim has probably realized his quest. A nuclear-armed North Korea means that President Bush's multilateral strategy for preventing Pyongyang from acquiring nukes has failed just as dramatically as Clinton's policy of direct engagement did a decade ago. It means that even when they are united, Beijing, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul and Washington haven't found the right combination of levers to halt nuclear proliferation by a rogue state. And it probably means that even if the U.S. and its allies can coax Pyongyang back into negotiations--a big if--their hand is weakened by what the declaration described as Kim's "arsenal." At a time when the Bush Administration is trying to increase pressure on Iran over its purported ambitions to obtain the bomb, Washington confronts a more immediate crisis with a country that claims to have it already.

North Korea has been doing an elaborate fan dance about its nuclear assets for so long that many experts assumed it had gone nuclear months or even years ago. All that was lacking was an official confirmation, and so when that came, speculation centered on why Kim had decided to come clean. North Korea's 1,100-word declaration argues that the country had little choice but to brandish its weapons after several weeks of warmongering by Washington. It cited comments by the President in his Inaugural Address and Secretary Rice in her confirmation hearings--Rice labeled Korea an "outpost of tyranny"--which to Kim's ears sounded like calls for regime change.

But there was another explanation for the announcement: Pyongyang needed to change the subject. Two weeks ago, the White House secretly dispatched two National Security Council (NSC) aides to Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul armed with evidence that North Korea may have supplied a uranium compound to Libya for its weapons labs. The gaseous compound, known as uranium hexafluoride (UF6), is a precursor to bomb-grade uranium, something bombmakers feed into centrifuges to harvest the highly fissionable isotope uranium-235 (U-235) that is at the heart of an atom bomb. Though UF6 is hard to make, it's possible to track: forensic tests focus on trace isotopes, such as U-234, whose prevalence differs from country to country and even from mine to mine. After the U.S. gained access to Tripoli's bombmaking labs a year ago, it ran tests on the UF6 it found there. U.S. officials would not connect all the dots, but one told TIME the fuel from Libya bore "a very clear signature" that pointed to North Korea.

The new U.S. evidence was rushed to officials in Beijing, who have tolerated Pyongyang's denials that it has a UF6 processing facility. The U.S. intelligence made that view seem dangerously naive. If North Korea was producing enough UF6 to export to Libya, it surely had enough for its weapons labs at home. There is some evidence that North Korea sold its UF6 not directly to Libya but via the black-market bazaar of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan. That means that North Korea may not have known where its UF6 was going when it sold it, says Gordon Flake, a North Korea analyst at the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs. The new UF6 evidence was apparently strong enough to help the two NSC aides, Michael Green and William Tobey, win an audience with Chinese President Hu Jintao two weeks ago. U.S. officials would not detail Hu's reaction to the briefing, but one told TIME, "It made an impression."

But that hasn't led to much clarity about what to do. Two questions occupy the Bush team's sometimes highly divided proliferation squads: Just what is the nature of Pyongyang's arsenal? And what, if anything, can be done about it? The type and number of weapons Kim has remain unknown. Most analysts think the count is fewer than a dozen. Size actually matters more than quantity: the smaller the warhead, the easier it is to mount it in an airplane or atop a missile. Several of Pyongyang's medium-range systems, if operational, could reach Japan; one long-range weapon could theoretically reach Alaska.

What alternatives does the U.S. have? Given that a pre-emptive military strike against potential weapons sites would be fraught with complications--who knows how the situation might escalate, especially considering North Korea's substantial conventional arsenal--even anti-Kim hard-liners acknowledge that diplomacy remains the most palatable option. Kim repeated his demand last week for bilateral negotiations with Washington, a prospect the Administration rejects out of hand. The U.S. still hopes to confront the North Koreans in a multilateral setting, and the linchpin of that strategy is China. Bush has long believed that Beijing has the most to gain and lose on the Korean peninsula and would quietly pressure Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Beijing has been North Korea's closest ally, funneling oil and food. China would have to absorb many refugees if Kim's regime failed.

In the wake of Pyongyang's latest fulminations, the Administration is counting on China to drag the North Koreans back to the six-party table--a role China embraced in a phone call between Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Secretary Rice on Saturday night. "China will stay in touch with all relevant parties," Li told her. James Lilley, who was ambassador to both China and South Korea in the 1980s, says Pyongyang's tactics are designed to stall for time and force concessions from outsiders before sitting down to talk again. The only way to counter it, he believes, is to take swift action both jointly and alone. Japan, he argues, could cut off all shipping; South Korea could halt its many industrial and tourism projects with the North; the U.S. could again press for economic sanctions at the U.N. And the Chinese, Lilley says, could "go to the North Koreans, put their arms around their shoulders, kiss them on both cheeks and then whisper in their ears, 'Oh, by the way, your oil? We're gonna cut it 10% a month.'" Says Lilley: "Lets see what happens then. My bet is you'll see fuming and lots of shaking fists and million-man parades, and then they'll come to the table."

That may be the best bet for averting a crisis. But China has yet to sign on to a hard line. Beijing last month sent a Foreign Ministry diplomat to Pyongyang to discuss restarting the talks but never threatened to cut off aid. Its official returned without a deal and convinced that the North's resolve was unbreakable. "Even if China cuts aid," says a member of China's foreign policy establishment who was briefed on the meetings, "they will not weaken." Unless the U.S. and its allies get tough and together in a hurry, the world may soon find itself worried less about how fast Kim is building nuclear bombs than about how we're going to live with them. --Reported by Matt Forney/Beijing, Jim Frederick/Tokyo, Donald Macintyre/Seoul and Elaine Shannon/Washington

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1027498-1,00.html






One of the possible reasons against military action
It would most likely be a diaster (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-02-27-nkorea-military-usat_x.htm)

Lord_Vader
02-15-2005, 10:12 AM
One of the possible reasons against military action
It would most likely be a diaster



The article is good and it points out many good facts. I have heard the "World's 4th largest Army" before. The article didn't mention that Iraq used to hold that title. I'm not saying that North Korea would be difficult. I suspect that we would utilize the South Korean ground forces almost exclusively. We would conduct the Air War. I would think that there would be a overnight initial strike against any possible nuclear and /or infrastructure targets. The real secret to a quick conflict would be to get the Chinese to hit them from the rear. I have no reason for saying so, but I would suspect that most of their defenses are on the 38th parallel.

Release
02-15-2005, 09:48 PM
Nuclear Offense (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6960513/site/newsweek/)