I thought GWBush was freakin' crazy when he called those 3 countires the axis of evil.
And I still think evil is the wrong word entirely and that axis has been used for affect.
But either his statement provoked the North Koreans into action or GWBush knew something the rest of us didn't. (Most likely!)

The north Koreans have a really bad track record for the same type of shit they are doing now but they weren't news worthy then.

They have some nukes and are trying to make more. They have said they will rain fire down on us if we have a conflict with them.

If they continue fucking up and if they continue threatining the region are we going to try to fight a conventional war with them. (South Korea has a bad ass military to you know!) Even though a conventional war would be most foolish and futile.

So in light of this are they the bigger threat to US and our allies?
I say yes thay are the bigger threat.

But the threat from them is not immediate unless we attack them or provoke them into aggression.

Do you know that just one sub off their coast can destroy their entire country before they could fire a nuke?

Unless they agree to give up the nukes and come back into complance we are going to have to first strike nuke them eventually anyway or else we allow them to fire their own nukes at Japan and South Korea!!!

Sounds crazy huh?

What should we do about North Korea if the threat continues?

Should we nuke North Korea? :hic:

North Korea is like the scrappy little kid you knew in middle school. Keeps mouthing off thinking one of his friends might help him or that maybe the school administration will step in just in time and save him. We all knew that kid got his ass whupped in every school.

Is it our job to whoop this bad kids ass in the first place?

What if we don't?

Why don't we just let China annex them? :rokk:

North Korea signed a non agression pact with the Clinton administration and since that time it appeared that things did nothing but improve in North Korea.

Soon after Bush was elected the North Koreans asked the new administration to confirm that they agreed to continue that pact.

Bush not only wouldn't affirm the new administrations agreement to the non agression pact... but just when North and South Korea appeared on the brink of moving toward one Korea, Bush calls them part of his axis of evil?!?!

I don't know how long we are all expected to assume Bush knows something the rest of us don't so it's ok for him to act like a cowboy.. but North Korea appear to have attempted a lot of negotiation before they have been driven to the point of saying "fuck you" if you don't want a non agression and non nuclear developement pact then we will build more nukes.

Nuking them does seem to be the best chance GWB has of avoiding his fathers one term wonder trick.

Good response there. Most everything seems related to Daddy B.


Even the money he got for the Texas Rangers...



Last edited by heqdvd at Jan 22 2003, 01:43 PM

US-North Korea relations have been bad for 50 years. There have been hundreds of incidents of political conflict throughout that time period - and of course an actual war too. Neither Bush is or was the primary source of a five decade long ongoing relations problem between the countries.





Last edited by Colin at Jan 22 2003, 02:00 PM

I know we are forced into action and without it we fuel an even bigger problem but Bush seems to me like a man who purposely ruffles feathers.

Colin said:
>>North Korea is like the scrappy little kid you knew in middle school. Keeps mouthing off thinking one of his friends might help him or that maybe the school administration will step in just in time and save him. We all knew that kid got his ass whupped in every school. >>>

Well Bush seems like a bully who will only shout with a crowd behind him. He reminds me of someone who speaks before thinking.

Maybee neighter Bush was, or is the primary source of trouble, but they sure know how to stir up Shit !

Bush doesn't need to know anything we don't. There is much information available gathered from defectors, etc. Much of it is available from Human Rights Organizations.

North Korea is a dictatorship that spends insane amounts of money on developing it's missile program, sell its weapons all over the world, and won't feed it's population.

Defectors have reported executions of political prisoners without trial. Defectors caught trying to leave the country are shot dead at the borders. Senior party officials have been executed for ideological differences.

Many defectors report that North Korea operates concentration camps with forced all-day labor, beatings, torture, starvation, rape, and murder. There are reports of between 150,000 and 200,000 people in these camps.

I am glad Bush is standing up to these fuckers.

I wonder how Al Gore would have handled this situation.

:unsure:

"Doctors Without Borders pulled out of North Korea in early 2000 when it was denied access to some of North Korea's poorest people. Several Western aid agencies have said the North Korean government refuses to allow food aid to be distributed to the neediest people, but channels it instead to families tied to the ruling Korean Workers' Party, the military and workers considered necessary to maintain Kim Jong Il's government."

http://www.hrwf.net/newhrwf/html/north_kor...ies__polic.html

I don't actually disagree that the North Korean regime could be called evil. Why Bush decided to do it so publicly in such a confrontational way is still beyond me... more than a year after he said it... do we just follow the this guy blindly forever? Many of us were laughing at him as a buffoon up until September 10th 2001. Elections are looming... it really is time to start looking at this guys achievements and questioning some of his motives.

I don't see any reason apart from Bush's political machinations that have brought about all this tension.. The South Korean's are even pissed off about Bush seemingly knocking the reconciliation process on the head.

How would Al Gore have handled the situation? Clearly this particular situation would not have arisen under Al Gore.

You just can't start nuking places, there has been several decades worth of non-proliferation work in the world precisely so no country can set the damaging precedent of initiating a nuclear strike without it being in retaliation for another nuclear strike or similar attack.

The Great Leader is really much like a spoiled, crying baby, would you drop the sofa on your kid's head if he was crying for more candy?

Colin,

I meant all Bush's actions are motivated by Daddy debts. That's what I meant. I should be clearer, understood.

One begets the other.

AND

GOODNIGHT COLIN AND THE BOARD -

I'll be her all year!!!!


(where's Serge... oh no not pavka.net????)

:unsure:

who banned you and where?

Who is she?

Don't be so negative.

Read the itsy-bitsy spider

Our allies like Japan and S Korea - remember the South Koreans? they live in the neighborhood - might not be too keen on us tossing around nukes in their neighborhood. I hardly think the Chinese and Russians would be particularly supportive, either, even if they wouldn't give a damn if the moron in charge went away.

Blaming the Bush dynasty for the problems with N Korea is kind of silly, IMHO. They've proven themselves to be problems for a long time; I believe they captured the Pueblo back when George I was still a congressman. Little Bush does seem to have gone out of his way to antagonize them; it fits into the cold war mentality of his entourage, and plays very well to a particular domestic audience, though, so that's perfectly understandable. Anyway, I wonder where N Korea would have gotten the idea that walking away from treaties aimed at preventing nuclear proliferation was an acceptable thing?

North Korea is very much a dangerous thing. But nuke em? Not as a "prememptive" measure. Leaving aside the whole issue of letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle, it presents a huge tactical nightmare. If you attempt a so-called "surgical" strike on just the nuclear facilities, then S. Korea is going to be invaded and an awful lot of the 40,000 US troops there will be in very deep shit. If you go all-out nuke from the DMZ north, you've still created enormous problems for the South Koreans, Japanese, and others who live in the neighborhood.

Well I guess the dominant feeling here and else where is that the world should just suck North Korea's dick for a while and depend on the promise of them not cumming.

First of all it's a world problem not a US problem and if the world doesn't care what is the US supposed to do? Wait for chaos? Wait 'till we are nuked?
WTF?

What'd happen if we pulled our troops and support for the region?

The North Korean's might think the Bush administration walked away from this treaty first.. and there was no treaty at all by the time they restarted nuclear production.

What bargaining power do they have if they continue to comply with a treaty the USA refuses to follow?




Dan, I agree this is a world problem... you carry on like the rest of the world WANTS the USA to be world policeman.. That is pure domestic propoganda... the UN can do ANY job the US military can do... particularly IF the USA chooses to start supporting it!

American's often complain that the rest of the world expexts it to come running for defensive support.... Australians don't even beleive America would necesarily come running to save us .. and we bend over backwards and say... "Sure, we will stand behind you 100% of the time" what do you think Europeans, Asians or African's really think???

I wish more American's could see how few countries really are still behind the US like they were prior to GWB... and I dont say prior to September 11th becasue Bush had already gone well down the track of alienating the Europeans and the North Koreans well before Sept 11

Just vote him out... and WATCH how fast these problems are resolved.. Bush is the flea causing this itch... send that redneck cowboy back to the ranch and get a proper leader people!!

Yeah that's going to be a trick and a half. Get ready for 6 more years of this at least :cdance: After that maybe we get a saxophonist again or maybe electric guitar this time :okthumb:



Last edited by Ironhorse at Jan 22 2003, 11:03 PM

The United States didn't walk away from the treaty the N Koreans are violating. We walked away from a different treaty entirely. So we may have set a sort of precedent, but not directly. The nonproliferation treaty that N Korea has opted out of is a lot different.

First of all, he's a faux redneck and cowboy (there are very few cowboys in Kennebunkport). Second of all, he's only one part in this mess, and not nearly as much a part as some people would like to think. Who exactly holds the office of the President of the United States will not significantly influence the actions of a rouge state like N. Korea. I don't dispute the fact that using the war on terror as an excuse to go after Saddam, and the simple-minded language behind the whole "axis of evil" approach, may have contributed to N Korea's tactical decisions - but probably not their policy decisions.

Really? Now, you are kidding me, right? No Republican President can dare to be seen as supporting the U.N. too much - it would alienate the "everybody else in the world are pussies or commies" attitude of a large part of their constituency. And I'm pretty certain that there are far more problems involved in getting the UN to deal with a situation like N Korea than just the U.S. When the UN does things like allow Libya to chair the Human Rights committee, it begins to lose just a tad of its credibility, don'cha think?

Exactly the same prediction would have been made 12 years ago today. We could get a sax or guitar player a lot quicker than you think, 'cause we're barely into the 2nd half ... and nowhere near the 2 minute warning.

The USA is far from the party to blame for the original problem.. 2 years ago I would have been here arguing that the US appeared to be getting far too lenient toward Nth Korea and they would just take advantage of the situation to rebuild and go straight back to their erratic hostile ways.

I do agree.. in my dreams the UN could organise a good war on world terroism at the moment.. The EU has already shown what a self interested group it can be with the recent German elections.. They were seemingly happy to use campaign tactics that destabilised the entire world without a care. In fact I would go as far to say that Germany significantlly helped the terrorists interests during that election period.

Whoever is in government... whilst the US holds the lions share of world power I would like to see them using, controlling and driving institutions like the UN and World Criminal Court.. Gaining worldwide agreement (from a position of power) on a set of war and human rights standards that will take us safely through this century. Giving the Europeans time to build and organise into an alternative power block before a set of rules the world has agreed upon is a bad tactic imho.

If we need a democrat to do this stuff... so be it, PLEASE let us have one in 2004... :headwall:

PD is right.

N Korea first violated the Non Proliferation Agreement by building a reactor specifically for producing weapons grade plutonium. They said specifically "its our right to have nuclear weapons" in response to criticism.

did people forget them lobbing a ballistic missile over Japan or what?

Clinton considered bombing this nuclear reactor and instead in 1994 they made another agreement where North Korea agreed to stop pursuing nuclear weapons programs and shut down that reactor in return for aid.

again, N Korea agreed and initiated a second program to enrich Uranium in another location which was not only a violation of both agreements, but was a pretty blatent "fuck you, we dont care"

i dont remember the timeline specifically... but does anyone remember the recent chain of events?

US- "hey you have nuclear weapons"
NK- "yes we do"
NK- "uh.... wait! No! no we dont"
NK- "ok... yes we do"
US- "ok, since you have no intention of honoring your agreements, then we will stop sending you oil"
NK- "ok, we are firing up the reactor again"
US- "hey, man... bad move"
NK- "now we are kicking out all Atomic Energy Commission monitors"
NK- "but we just need the reactor for electricity
US- "ok... we are going to have to consider stopping all aid"
NK- "Fuck you.. stopping aid is going to be considered by us to be an act of war"
NK- "we are withdrawing from the 1994 agreement because the US and its agressive policies towards NK"
NK- "we have no intention of developing weapons"
NK- "we will resume missile testing"
NK- "we want to talk and negotiate and resolve this peacefully"
NK- "the US will die in a sea of fire"
etc etc etc etc.

now what? reward them for being a defiant, dangerous, threatening, fucked up, backwards, Stalinist dictatorship that is murdering its own people by starving them to death?

time to bomb a reactor in my opinion.



Last edited by JR at Jan 23 2003, 03:00 AM

That sounds a bit less drastic than "Nuke Em" ... and much better domestic propoganda material to work with. "We only blew the hell out of a nasty nuclear reactor... and we had to do it... look at how many times they have lied and changed position and threatened to attack the USA.. We had to stop those mad fuckers.." pllllf


Speaking of predictable.......


before GWBush gets started on his 3rd target in the axis of evil, Iran, Anyone care to predict what his big problem will be with them?

My bet is the next big terrorism incident will be followed up with mountains of evidence that Iranians did it, financed it or planned it.

I agree.

i think its reasonable to assume that a weak and imploding, tyrannical religious dictatorship with a big banner flying in their national mosque that says "death to all Americans" may not have good intentions or at the very least may not be sending us a Christmas card next year.

If you read comments from various US officials you will see that the opinion of Iran is much more mixed than that of North Korea or Iraq.

i.e. 'Powell said that both "good things" and "not-so-good things" have been happening in Iran.'

Well North Korea can only be considered a threat if they're nuclear program is designed to produce weapons.....they claim it's to provide their nation with nuclear power.

Shouldn't we establish proof of this before going to war?!?

Bush: "wazzup P-Man"
Powell: clears throat "uh hum. there are good things and bad things happening in Iran"
Bush: "what? bad things happening and you ran? Goddam son, what kinda soldier are you? A Texan never ru..."
Powell: "excuse me Mr President Sir, i am speaking about the country I-R-A-N"
Bush: "oh right right... Iran."
long silence
Bush: "wheres Iran"
long pause
Powell: "its a country. its next to Iraq sir"
Bush: "yeah yeah... i remember. so whats happening there? you said good things and bad things?"
Powell: "well yeah. The good thing thats happening, is that the current Islamic Fundamentalist government, with a miserable human rights record, brutally tight control over the country through an obsolete and failed system of central planning and continual oppression is collapsing"
Powell:"the bad news is that they are about to be replaced with an Islamic fundamentalist government with a miserable human rights re.................."

Jr, do you think it is possible that the Bush Administration has orchestrated the current conflict situation with Nth Korea?

Here's a couple of quotes about the Iran/US relationship after Sept 11... written by a CDI researcher on 14th February 2002. (and I don't know how reliable CDI are or who they are affiliated with.. maybe you do)


Following the events of Sept. 11, American and Iranian interests found much in common. Iran immediately denounced the attacks in New York and Washington and offered to assist in the rescue of downed American pilots.

Iran had long since embarked on a good neighbor policy in the Gulf and Central Asia. The one exception was the Taliban, and relations between Tehran and the movement were bitter and often hostile.

According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Iranian diplomats had performed a constructive role in Bonn and Tokyo in the formation of an interim Afghan government. The British government, with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the lead, argued that the time was ripe to strengthen the hand of reformers within Iran through engagement.

There seemed to be compelling reasons to repair the two-decade-old breach between Washington and Tehran

In recent weeks, a spate of reports have alleged Iranian involvement in smuggling arms to the Palestinian Authority, There undoubtedly is some truth to these allegations. Others raise puzzling questions. What is clear is that the Bush administration now favors confrontation rather than engagement.


http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm

Puzzling Questions... Just like the way this issue with Nth Korea has flared up... with people puzzling as to why it has got to this point?!?!

i am going to assume that the rock you live under does not have cable tv and the dense stone also blocks traditional tv reception.

THEY ADMITTED TO ENRICHING URANIUM FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS
THE REACTOR IS ALSO SET UP TO PRODUCE WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM

most importantly....
THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS - which is in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty they signed.

why dont we just wait until the nuke South Korea? then we can have a long international debate about "well... they said they would not nuke anyone else" or "they promised not to do it again"

Jr, do you think it is possible that the Bush Administration has orchestrated the current conflict situation with Nth Korea?
[/b][/quote]
sure... he put them all on notice as an "axis of evil"

Iran still swears to be an enemy of the "Great Satan"... fine with me.. That place will make a really cool Glass Park.

he then called bullshit on Saddam for 12 years of saying "fuck you world"

then he called bullshit on North Korea for breaking every agreement they ever signed regarding their nuclear weapons programs.

i think its great. if he is going to commit himself to being a one term President, he should blow these fuckers off the map so the next Liberal Democrat President can make the peace with the world.

OK.. now there's a concept I can relate to!

Not really the most subtle way to go... but the outcome seems to be similar to what i would like to see :rokk:

(lets hope nothing goes wrong on the way)

Anyone care to predict what his big problem will be with them?
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, RUSSIA!!!

They already have nukes!!!

You cannot bomb their reactor(s) or they will rain hell from above on somebody!!!

They already have nukes!!!

If diplomacy doesn't work there is only one way to deal with them and it involves mushroom clouds and shadows burned on the ground.

"I do not want this to happen, I don't want any of this shit to be happening. But it is!!!"

They already have nukes!!!

And they are being quite threating about it.

They already have nukes!!!

Get it?



:redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance:

They MAY have one or two and that is not known for sure. Also - North Korea has never tested a nuclear weapon which would seem to me to be an argument against them having developed one themselves. A nuclear weapons test is easily detectable.

They already have nukes!!!

You cannot bomb their reactor(s) or they will rain hell from above on somebody!!!

They already have nukes!!!

If diplomacy doesn't work there is only one way to deal with them and it involves mushroom clouds and shadows burned on the ground.

"I do not want this to happen, I don't want any of this shit to be happening. But it is!!!"

They already have nukes!!!

And they are being quite threating about it.

They already have nukes!!!

Get it?



:redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance: :redance:[/b][/quote]
i said that already.
get it !?! ;)

are you by chance abusing amphetimines?

how can you say "you cant bomb the reactor because it will rain down hell on everyone" then say "If diplomacy doesn't work there is only one way to deal with them and it involves mushroom clouds"

I am not on amps, I'm fucked up naturally!!! :hic:
I wanted to point out by repetition the absolute main point - They already have nukes is the main point!!!

And you misunderstood what I said or I wasn't clear:

I said "You cannot bomb their reactor(s) or they will rain hell from above on somebody!!!"

They being the North Koreans, if you conventional bomb something in their country They have already said they will rain nuclear fire down on us in a war.

I wasn't refering to radioactive fallout from a reactor.

you wanna bet that they NEVER said that?

you wanna bet that they NEVER said that?[/b][/quote]
I would not take that bet!!!
I can't ever be 100% sure even if I saw it on TV and I saw the the guys lips moving, I've seen talking dogs on TV, too!

But it has been reported that this is the case.

Since I don't personally have the ability to be omnipresent I'll have to take into consideration these reports.

I don't always trust my Government, but I trust everybody elses Government even less!!!
At least the US Government and I live in the same counrty, Sort of.