ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 01:45:19 PM new
South Korea has a very strong army and they don't need our ground troops to stop a North Korean invasion. This is how we should handle North Korea:
1. Get our ground troops out of Korea ASAP. Or at least out of North Korean artillery range.
2. Bomb the North Korean nuke plants.
3. Respond to the North Koreans' actions accordingly.
If they start using nukes, then we nuke them 3 times each time they use one of theirs. If they barrage the South with artillery, then we bomb them (conventionally) into the stone age.
Bush needs to get Iraq done with already. He made a big mistake trying to get UN support when France and Germany are in bed with Iraq. We don't need anybody's permission to defend ourselves.
And thank you Bill Cinton for leaving us all of these problems. Osama bin Laden should've been captured on your watch. Saddam Hussein should've been disarmed on your watch. And North Korea's nuke plants should've been bombed long ago on your watch.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html
|
trai
|
posted on March 8, 2003 01:50:49 PM new
What dreamland do you live in??
|
Borillar
|
posted on March 8, 2003 02:31:41 PM new
Incredibly stupid. Beyond mere ignorance.
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 02:58:53 PM new
Let's just close our eyes and hope these problems go away.
|
CBlev65252
|
posted on March 8, 2003 03:36:07 PM new
Maybe you should be sent over there to be used as a human shield. What utter nonsense.
Cheryl
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 05:10:35 PM new
My suggestion to bomb the North Korean nuke plants was called "living in dreamland" "incredibly stupid" and "utter nonsense"???
If we don't take care of this problem, North Korea will become a nuclear Walmart. Once they start up their nuke plants, they can crank out one nuclear bomb per month.
I don't think it's a good idea to let these psychos build a nuclear arsenal. I wonder how the above posters would handle North Korea? Pay 'em off? Sign a 'treaty' and then look the other way? Surrender?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/08/international/asia/08KORE.html?ex=1048395600&en=54227780c39d13df&ei=5004&partner=UNTD
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 05:25:14 PM new
I stand by my statements that these problems should have been taken care of by Clinton.
Sudan offered to hand Osama bin Laden over to us in the 90's. But Clinton passed.
Clinton should've come down hard on Iraq when they kicked out the UN inspectors. Clinton fired a few cruise missiles and that was it.
Clinton paid North Korea to not make plutonium nukes. I guess he forgot to mention uranium nukes. But it didn't matter because the Koreans didn't honor the agreement anyway.
|
reamond
|
posted on March 8, 2003 05:47:21 PM new
Looks like when we bomb the nuclear plants, we need to nuke their missle sites, command and control centers, and all major military sites too.
Pyongyang: We'll put a torch to New York
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html
N. Korea: Our missiles can hit all of U.S.Unofficial Pyongyang spokesman makes bold threat
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31414
[ edited by reamond on Mar 8, 2003 05:56 PM ]
|
trai
|
posted on March 8, 2003 07:12:54 PM new
Good lord mon! Just who the hell gave the u.s.a. the right to attack anybody whenever you feel like it? Its one thing to protect oneself if attacked, but to strike at anyone because we dont like their nuke plants etc.. will leave us wide open to constant warfare.
What do you think the rest of the world will do if they see us as a bigger threat than north korea or china?
Problem with nukes is that they can fly in more than one direction. One has to move very carefully when you are dealing with this type of hardware.
How to deal with them?? Start by talking to them and find out why they are saber rattling now. One step at a time is what you do.
You have to understand that we can not go to war with the entire friggen planet, we are not that strong!If we have to fight saddam,fine, one thing at the time. Lets not start ww3 right off the bat.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on March 8, 2003 07:22:59 PM new
Council On Foreign Relations
ebayauctionguy, some of their info directly contradicts yours, such as one nuke a month versus one a year.And
"Why is the United States reluctant to use force against the North?
Because it would probably mean a war on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has more than 8,000 artillery pieces, some possibly armed with chemical or biological weapons, along its 150-mile border with South Korea. A counterattack by the North would devastate Seoul and put the U.S. soldiers stationed there at risk, as well as threaten Japan, another key U.S. ally in the region."
Don't you remember that Clinton encouraged engagement between South and North Korea, and relations were the best they had been between the two? I live in a community with a large Korean-American population, and they certainly remember that very well. 
dinsteadofc
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Mar 8, 2003 07:23 PM ]
|
snowyegret
|
posted on March 8, 2003 08:06:50 PM new
"SEOUL, South Korea, Nov. 21 — Last July, American intelligence agencies tracked a Pakistani cargo aircraft as it landed at a North Korean airfield and took on a secret payload: ballistic missile parts, the chief export of North Korea's military.
The shipment was brazen enough, in full view of American spy satellites. But intelligence officials who described the incident say even the mode of transport seemed a subtle slap at Washington: the Pakistani plane was an American-built C-130."
From the NYTimes nov 24, 2002
Rest of article here
You have the right to an informed opinion
-Harlan Ellison
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 08:51:29 PM new
We need to look into the future and understand what a nuclear armed North Korea will mean. Does anyone doubt that they will sell their nukes? Think a nuclear Walmart. And what will we be able to do about it if they have 100+ nukes loaded on missiles pointed at South Korea and Japan. They're going to do whatever they damn well please or else they'll nuke every democracy in Asia. I think that's what they call nuclear blackmail.
You can't deal with psychos. They've already cheated on an agreement and they threatened "total war" if sanctions are brought against them. Heck, they'll threaten total war if we even look at them funny.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to own a gun and some countries should not be allowed to own nukes. Russia and China were enemies, but they were at least sane and responsible enemies.
North Korea's nuclear program needs to be dealt with soon. I'm not saying we should invade them. I'm saying we should take out their nuke plants. If they escalate it to total war, then we'll have to deal with that.
Better now than waiting until they have a nuclear arsenal.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 8, 2003 08:55:02 PM new
Just who the hell gave the u.s.a. the right to attack anybody whenever you feel like it
The United States "feels" like it when you have a**hole commies brewing weapons grade plutonium and supplying it to anyone that wants it, particularly those terrorists that will smuggle a nuclear bomb into a major US city and detonate it no matter what the United States does or doesn't do.
A large number of countries support the actions of the United States. The only ones that do not are the ones with lucrative contracts with Iraq.
In fact, many detractors of US Iraq policy say that North Korea must/should be addressed first. Well Korea has made its position clear- it will make weapons grade plutonium and do what it wishes with it.
So the world has a choice. It can choose appeasement and allow these nuts to have weapons of mass destruction and at their earliest convienence these weapons will be used against the US by terrorists, or we can act now and destroy these problems before the death toll in the United States grows very high.
Clinton tried talking and appeasement and paid blackmail money to North Korea. It didn't work. It is time to stand up to these murderous thugs and despots.
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 8, 2003 08:59:54 PM new
A large number of countries support the actions of the United States. The only ones that do not are the ones with lucrative contracts with Iraq.
So the only countries which would not support action by the U.S. in Korea are those with lucrative contracts with Iraq? 
Irene
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:15:12 PM new
I will write this slowly for you Irene.
Iraq and North Korea present similar problems, but with a different set of solutions due to the difference in their state of weapons development.
Iraq can be resolved with conventional weapons. North Korea can not.
Now, the reason I mentioned that the Iraq and French/German/Russian connection is to point out to those who keep repeating that the US is acting unilaterally, and the whole world is against America.
Well, the whole world is not against America with the Iraq action, and it will not be against America when we whack North Korea.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:26:15 PM new
It's time to stop talking about whacking countries.
After Bush has placed North Korea on the axis of evil, told Bob Woodward that "I loathe Kim Jongll!," and later referred to him as a pygmy, it's not difficult to see why North Korea is hell bent on making nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
But instead of talking, Bush just escalated the tension by saying that if efforts to resolve the crisis don't work diplomatically, they'll have to work militarily. It is URGENT that Bush begin diplomatic talks with face to face negotiations with North Korea as soon as possible.
Helen
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:31:33 PM new
Reamond, your response to the comment Just who the hell gave the u.s.a. the right to attack anybody whenever you feel like it was to dismiss any opposition as irrelevant because the opposition had vested interests.
Sorry, whether the opposition (or the U.S.)has vested interests or not, is irrelevant to the question - who gave the U.S. the right to attack anybody they feel like it?
That being said, the situation in North Korea is frightening and I wish the U.S. was focusing on that rather than Iraq. I also suspect the the world community would be a lot more supportive if efforts were focused in that direction.
Irene
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:36:56 PM new
Actually as the WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER, we can and should do any damn thing that we feel is in protection of the US...
'nuff said...
For years we have been the world's police officer and now is the time to show a bunch of ungrateful bastards what it is like to call down the thunder and lightning.
We are pulling troops back so that when we bomb the hell out of N.Korea's nuke plant...little damage will be done in the event of a counter attack.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:37:20 PM new
No, it is urgent that the United States render North Korea incapable of launching anything but a small boat before we have a nuclear bomb go off in one of our major cities.
It is also disingenuous to imply that this challenge from North Korea has anything to do with Bush's statements.
This problem started with the Clinton administration. Clinton negotiated and paid the blackmail and North Korea lied and was pursuing their weapons program anyway.
The money we paid to North Korea could have been used for health care for US children and many other things.
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:43:20 PM new
Twelvepole,
I'm a bit of a history buff (my favorite periods being the 12th to 17th centuries). Those who invade other countries or territories usually state (as their justification) that they are doing it in self-defense.
Irene
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:43:58 PM new
North Korea is going to be a real test for Bush. Will he take out the nuke plants and risk an all out war with North Korea? Thousands of South Koreans would die.
Or will he back off and let North Korea build their nukes? We could then look forward to nuclear blackmail and terrorists with nukes. Possibly destroyed US cities.
It's lose-lose for Bush.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:49:36 PM new
thank you twelvepole for saying that.
really. I am tired of people in our own country, living 'off the fat of the land' and then in the next breath say publicly how bad we are, while they sit in their new SUV's, or in front of their new super computer, or their 150 inch high defintion tv, while they talk on the latest 2 inch cell phone.
Well, lets at least move OUR TROOPS OUT OF KOREA, ALL OF THEM. I think N. Korea is going to blow them and what is around them up.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:50:29 PM new
Sorry Irene, I'll type even slower.
Read trai's whole post and maybe you can follow my response. The gist is that the US is acting unilaterally, but in reality it is not just the "usa" exercising a right to attack "anybody", as in the case of Iraq, there are many countries aligned with our "attack" on Iraq and the main ones that are opposed have lucrative contracts with Iraq.
The USA is not acting singularly against Iraq and it is not acting singularly against North Korea. There is South Korea, Japan, and China involved.
You confuse being a leader with acting unilaterally and alone. That isn't true with the Iraq campaign and it isn't true with what we will be doing to North Korea.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:52:16 PM new
stockticker, in your own opinion, why do you think the U.S. is going into Iraq? Do you really think its for the oil?
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:52:43 PM new
True and your point is?
We will be protecting ourselves...
Maybe indirectly but still will be protection.
Do unto others before they do unto you... is a good motto
This BS of waiting for them to make the first move is not a healthy way to do things...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 8, 2003 09:56:20 PM new
In lieu of the technology difference involved the idea of NK "mauling" the SK army or US forces is laughable. If the North decides to use its forces, they'll cure their starvation problem quickly.
But skip ahead a few years from now. NK will announce it has decided to "re-unite" the Koreas and "we have THE BOMB"!
Now I know the proper "pacifist" view is "Why would he do that, that's just silly"! But when it happens what is the proper response? Hold hands on a mountaintop, sing "Kumbaya" and beam them some good karma?
|
stockticker
|
posted on March 8, 2003 10:05:28 PM new
Do you really think its for the oil?
That would be a simplistic answer and I stopped seeing the world in black and white a long time ago. I will say this - if your President had U.N. backing, I would be a LOT more comfortable that the need to invade was urgent.
Irene
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on March 8, 2003 10:09:51 PM new
dsquirrel, NK has about 8,000 artillery tubes pointed at SK. Seoul would be leveled. This is like a hostage situation.
|
REAMOND
|
posted on March 8, 2003 10:21:38 PM new
How is it that if the UN says it is the right thing to do, it is more right than the United States, Britain and many others countries saying it is the right thing to do?
A unified UN is no more right than 5, 10, or 150 aligned countries. This is the result of people failing to realize that there is right and wrong regardless of what the UN says or does, as well member countries of the UN being ruled by dictators and despots.
If taking out Saddam Hussein is the right thing to do, it is right whether the UN goes along with it or not.
|
donny
|
posted on March 8, 2003 10:35:55 PM new
"Why is it the oil, we could buy all the oil we needed." That's the simple refutation to the simple accusation that "it's all about oil."
It's about control. The more control America has over resources, the more America can squeeze the rest of the world. Would America threaten the rest of the world like that, squeeze them if we thought we had them by the balls? Absolutely. We're all getting a chance to see that in the open now.
It's not that America or Americans are inherently worse than any other country or people. It's that they're more powerful. And they want to be more powerful still. This is the way of the world; past, present, future (God willing).
|
