posted on July 22, 2003 12:29:37 PM new
Does anyone else get the feeling that that bad haired little nut Kim is playing into Bush's hand by his beliggerant nonesense?
That the failure to defuse the Korean mess is just fine with Bush and Co, because they won't have to 'invent' any reason to act against North Korea as compared to Iraq (or Syraia or Iran). The fool is giving him plenty of public reason to act without fabricating anything.
posted on July 22, 2003 01:11:40 PM new
Starving people... starving people... I'm sick of hearing that. It's 2003 and we're still hearing it. Isn't it obvious by now that countries don't care about the starving? Governments are now running everything and people don't matter anymore.
NK has nothing to lose with all its posturing to a weak President. How can they lose?
posted on July 22, 2003 02:28:41 PM new
"Isn't it obvious by now that countries don't care about the starving? Governments are now running everything and people don't matter anymore. "
The reason they're starving is BECAUSE the government runs everything.
Zimbabwe used to export food, now they're starving too.
posted on July 22, 2003 03:08:23 PM new
That's right desquirrel. And these governments run the show because they're armed to the hilt. Having them is a sign of power but using them is a sign of weakness imo.
posted on July 22, 2003 03:37:33 PM new
George Bush refuses to have talks with North Korea. His own party has begged him to use diplomacy for over a year now. Kim thinks were going to attack his country so he is arming himself. Bush wants Kim to make Nukes so well have a reason to take over his country.
Its all part of THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. The neo cons have been planning this since the 80s
posted on July 22, 2003 04:05:35 PM newZimbabwe used to export food, now they're starving too.
There were several articles about what Zimbabwe did... they returned all land that was "believed" taken during the colonial years and gave it back to people who have very little clue of what to do with it.
Those farmers that they took the land from had been there for generations... funny though Mozambique took all the farmers that would come.
Seems that North Korea can flaunt real nuclear weapons of mass destruction without
consequence while Bush wages a war for peace and democracy in Iraq. It's time for the Bush
administration to wake up and effect a diplomatic solution in order to prevent a nuclear war
or the possibility that NK will produce and export weapons to rogue countries or terrorists.
posted on July 24, 2003 07:48:22 AM new
I just hope that they don't allow N. Korean agents act to justify their response to them. Because instead of a couple building and 3,000 people this time it might be L.A. that is knocked down.
posted on July 24, 2003 08:40:45 AM new
The Bush regime has already begun their retreat from North Korea by withdrawing 37,000 US troops from the DMZ after having been there for fifty years.
Unlike Iraq, greviously weakened by a decade of sanctions, UN enforcement of resolution 687 and daily air raids;
possessing no air force, no navy, no heavy weapons, no technical instruments, no means of supply and a small ill-equipped army, North Korea has the means to kill millions of people in very short order, including those 37,000 troops drawn up tightly south of the DMZ. North Korea has all of the instruments of war listed above, plus a nuke or two, and the will to use them. The Bush regime seems hell bent on providing the motivation.
posted on July 24, 2003 09:54:50 PM new
Looks like they are ready to negotiate.
SEOUL, July 24 — North Korea marked Sunday's 50th anniversary of the Korean War truce
by indicting U.S. President George W. Bush and 10 predecessors going back to Harry S. Truman
for crimes ranging from genocide to drug smuggling.
''The U.S. provoked the Korean War and has made persistent attempts to ignite another war,''
said the Pyongyang indictment, which also accused U.S. presidents of drug trafficking, human rights
abuses and violating nuclear disarmament agreements.
posted on July 25, 2003 07:13:34 AM new
The pullout of US troops from the DMZ was made due to safety concerns, and has nothing to do with long term
commitments to South Korea. Projections based on intelligence suggests the North Koreans would overrun the
37,000 American (trip-wire) within hours. Moving them back to safer positions was a sound practical decision
from High Command. Since this is a 'regional' problem, hopefully China will start exerting some muscle on Kim,
thwarting his ambitions on the peninsula. It doesn't matter which administration is in power, none should succumb
to nuclear blackmail.
"Stating the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Geo.Orwell
posted on July 25, 2003 08:34:16 AM new
The troops were not moved south of the DMZ to "safer positions " because they would have been destroyed in seconds at the DMZ. In their present positions they will have but a couple of minutes to say their prayers before they all die. In an age of intercontinental ballistic missles, do you really think redeploying the troops 37 miles south is "a sound practical {tactical} decision" to safeguard their lives?
Do you really think nuclear war is a "regional problem"?
"It doesn't matter which administration is in power, none should succumb to nuclear blackmail."
Isn't this administration using nuclear blackmail to promote it's agenda? Give up your nuclear weapons and any other weapons we deem to be WMD or we will kill you, sounds like blackmail to me. Are they not busy carrying out this blackmail in Iraq?
posted on July 25, 2003 05:09:05 PM new
I was just responding to your illogical statement that the Bush 'regime' has begun the retreat from Korea. That is hardly the case. I would agree with the asessment that
no place is safe when North Korea opens up. Given your opinion that America is high-tailing out of the region, your other statement about this administration's nuclear blackmail agenda is contradictory to that viewpoint.
I will stand by my original statement that this is a regional situation. If China, Russia, Japan, South Korea (to some extent), and other neighbors don't apply military/diplomatic solutions soon, then your world wide nuclear scenerio could play out. Imagine an unstable lunatic such as Kim with an arsenal of nuclear weapons,
blackmailing for political gain, or positioning in the world market - nations fearful his finger is on the trigger.
I know, In your mind I just described America.
Given the lies and deception dating back to the Clinton 'regime', this terrorist nation lacks credibility - and will continue with their WOMD program no matter who attempts diplomacy.
posted on July 25, 2003 09:57:17 PM new
I was just responding to your [i[false[/i] statement that American soldiers were withdrawn from the DMZ to "safer positions." It is puzzling to me that you, after having made this false statement, show no interest in the genuine reason for this manuever.
I find your willingness to place the fate of these 37,000 soldiers and, to a larger extent, the entire world, in the hands of the Chinese or Russians somewhat less than admirable. These soldiers are not the instruments of blackmail and plans to remove all US troops from the Korean peninsula are on the table.
If NK is a terrorist nation, as you describe it, how do their terrorist activities compare to the terrorist acts committed by the US and other nations over the last fifty years? Are their terrorist acts committed against the US on a par with those of other countries, such as Iraq?
As a fan of Orwell, I assume you do not find it strange that the country most responsible for terrorist acts committed against Americans in the United States ,and elsewhere, is an ally. Our allies are our enemies.
The problems in NK are far less complex than the duel to the death at high noon scenario this admistration and previous administrations, to a lesser extent, would have us believe.
The terrain and climate in NK preclude their ability to produce enough food to feed all the people. They need to trade with and import food from their neighbors, but US policies hinder, hamper and strive to prevent them from doing so.
What would you do if someone tried to prevent you from feeding your family?
Your suggestion that Far Eastern countries could intervene militarily is naive.
posted on July 25, 2003 11:12:53 PM new
"They need to trade with and import food from their neighbors, but US policies hinder, hamper and strive to prevent them from doing so.
What would you do if someone tried to prevent you from feeding your family?"
Just how do we "hinder" them from trading with the countries around them? What you really mean is that we have to "give" them aid, otherwise known as paying extortion.
"Your suggestion that Far Eastern countries could intervene militarily is naive."
Intelligence reports have given great weight to the Chinese being near the breaking point with their nutty neighbor. They see them as rocking the boat in China's massive trade with the west. China most definitely has formulated plans for a pre-emptive strike against NK.
As to the 37,000 Americans being cannon fodder for the "mighty" NK army and its' thousands of artillery pieces, dream on. Their only hope would be a nuclear attack.
posted on July 26, 2003 08:23:02 AM new
Korean War (1950-1953):
Casualties; (approximate)
US 145,000 including nearly 40,000 killed and 8,000 still missing or unaccounted for.
UN 17,000 dead or wounded.
S. Korea Between 1,000,000 and 1,500.000 military dead or wounded.
N. Korea 500,000 military dead or wounded.
China 1,000,000 military dead or wounded.
Civilian 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 dead or wounded.
At the end of the war, the U.S. levied economic sanctions against North Korea, a move that would have long-term effects on the North's economy and its ability to trade in the world market.
This war was fought with conventional weapons and tactics including thousands of artillery pieces which you so casually dismiss.
If this war was fought with todays weapons systems, what numbers would the casualties reach, providing the war was confined to the Korean peninsula which is unlikely? Would you consider 50,000,000 casualties a "win"?
I won't even comment on your "intelligence" reports, I have my own.
posted on July 26, 2003 12:21:55 PM new
It's a weird situation. On one side, you've got the U.S., whos policy is to start wars now with fabricated information, and a tiny country that can only feed themselves by selling their weapons and technology to countries the U.S. doesn't like. See how there are no winners? See how one side is right, depending on which side you're on? Bush has opened this can of war-worms, so who are the real enemies?
posted on July 26, 2003 12:28:11 PM new
NK will most certainly lose...but how can a country with nothing to lose, lose??
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on July 26, 2003 01:33:06 PM new
Kraft, you really don't have a clue. I suggest cutting down on the marijuana because it's obviously frying some brain cells.
posted on July 26, 2003 02:22:07 PM new
We can't do much about North Korea because South Korea and Japan are too weak-kneed to stand up to NK. China won't rein in NK unless we stop supporting Taiwan. We're going to have to fight it out with NK sooner or later. NK isn't going to give up their nuke program for anything. They are going to sell nukes. And they said that any sanctions or interdiction of their shipments would be considered an act of war.
But it might actually be to our advantage to let North Korea go nuclear. As soon as the first NK nuke goes off in an Asian city, then we can let our nukes fly and wipe out NK without a bloody (for the US) conventional war. If we can get our troops out of South Korea, the cost in US lives may even be zero. Of course a few cities in South Korea and Japan will probably be lost to NK nukes, but they are the ones who are now refusing to stand up to NK and their nuke program.
posted on July 26, 2003 02:24:52 PM new
U DONT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY ARE ARMING THEMSELVES IS BECOUSE THEY KNOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO ATTACK THEM NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
ALL BUSH HAS TO DO IS TALK TO THEM. HE WONT TALK TO THEM BECOUSE HE WANTS A WAR
posted on July 26, 2003 02:42:00 PM new
"ALL BUSH HAS TO DO IS TALK TO THEM. HE WONT TALK TO THEM BECOUSE HE WANTS A WAR"
I love to see this parrotted ad nauseum.
Simple truth is that whether they are Palestinians, Vietnamese, Cuban, Taliban (you can fill in your favorite blank here), We HAVE talked to them for YEARS. Even signed agreements with them, violated of course.
