Man! I am sick of the North Korea and their leadership..

[squeegee]

Asian version of the Natzis!Yep! I just hope they Nuke themselves with their tests. Why a f*****g brainwashed communist nation like that deserves to live on this Planet? Seriously, this bullshit nuclear tests is way bigger threat than any terrorist organizations all together.. Why UN still waiting to make a move? I hope Japan and South Korea wake up and fry their asses..Kim Jong-il should be assasinated...f*****g *** clown. uke: Can we say anachronism! 3 million people died of starvation, while leaders built nuclear weapons and palaces!

 

[ClayShaw]

There are other countries out there with similarly bad leadership in terms of the health and well being of their people, they just don't have nukes. Mugabe is bad, the generals in Burma are bad, al-Bashir (?) in the Sudan is bad...
I think the problem with N. Korea is that no one can really f*** with them without having to deal with China and Russia.
I agree that N. Korea is (along with Pakistan) probably the biggest threat out there right now. I think these "tests" aren't really tests, they're commercials. Anyone need a nuke? Just give that nut Kim Jong-Il a call. He'll sell it to you.

 

[The Gardener]

Well, let's see: for starters our pres. is a liberal, our Sec'y of State (Clinton) is a liberal, and the Congress is liberal, as well as much of the House of Reps. Not to mention all the liberal appointees in the new administration.

I find it interesting that NKorea waited until the US government is almost completely run by liberals and pacifists before they got bold with their nukes.

Gee, what a surprise! :roll: There's no correlation there! :roll: Puleeez!

What a bunch of bull. Before you go spouting out accusatory drivel, you might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself.... News flash: North Korea did the exact same thing under Bush

July 4th, 2006:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

And what did Bush do? The same things that Obama is contemplating... so don't give me this "liberal this or liberal that" cr ap.

Fact of the matter is that both Bush and Obama are responding to N Korea in the same way, and the only way that they both have... diplomacy and sanctions. I hear all of these blowhard neocons doing what they do best.... whine about why we can't start up a new war. The neocons are such a one note flute, all problems can be solved with military action.

Of course, they fail to take into account the fact that military action would be followed by retaliation, and they are oblivious to the fact that the capital of South Korea, Seoul, is VERY close to the border of North Korea, and is WELL within artillery range. Any military strike on North Korea could result in a barrage of Seoul, and/or a ground war required to finish North Korea off. Of course, the neocons just think that this would be a cakewalk, being totally blind to the fact that we've tried the "war" thing on the Korean peninsula before, and it wasn't pretty..... and, besides, WHAT troops do we have to spare to fight this war? We're already having our troops to three, four, even FIVE tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop loss orders, etc... plus, the US is going broke, and fighting a war requires lots of money for fuel, etc. No matter what some think, and despite Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's rich imaginations, the US does not have enough money or manpower to make every nation on the planet act the way we want them to.

Anyways, I for one am glad to see foreign policy conducted by people with level tempraments, as opposed to the triggerhappy neocons.

Our own US government will do absolutely nothing but feeble attempts at "sanctions" - which will be laughed at in the world terrorist community.

What does North Korea have to do with "terrorists"? And to be honest with you, the financial sanctions imposed after the 2006 missile firings were extremely effective, to the point where the North Koreans began disassembling Yonbyon!

But, I guess its just typical neocon thinking.... anyone who disagrees with you is a "terrorist". :shakehead:

 

[ali777]

I think I'm just gonna repeat everything the Gardener said.

The war on N Korea was tried in the 1950s, it didn't work. That's why the European NATO allies didn't get involved with Vietnam. NK was a bad experience for them, and they didn't have the resources or the will to fight again.

I think a war on NK is strategically impossible. SK is a very densely populated country and any missile attack would be disastrous.

It's only a matter time before the other global "trouble-makers" (i.e., Iran, Palestine, Russia, Venezuela, etc) will follow suit.

I love it when you guys use "terrorists" as a blanket term to mean everyone that doesn't agree with USA. Likewise, I presume "global trouble-makers" is anyone who doesn't have foreign policies in line with the US foreign policies, or shall I say the policies defined by the American businesses.

 

[The Gardener]

Might I remind you Gardener, that liberals (Dems.) took over Congress in 2006. That was when Bush's hands became tied. NKorea tested the first bomb in 2006, because of this fact.

Get YOUR facts straight, and quit with the liberal spin!

Dude, the 2006 election that gave the Dems a majority in Congress was in NOVEMBER.

Kim Jong Il's missile launch was on JULY 4th! So, um, NOOOO, the Dems were NOT in majority in Congress.

That's not "liberal spin", that's simply learning how to read a calendar correctly.

As for how Obama might respond... he'll probably respond in a similar fashion as to how Bush responded.

You keep referring to this "stop negotiating and get tough" position. What exactly do you imply? What actions would you take in response? And, how would North Korea retaliate to your actions?

When your military is stretched to the breaking point, as Kim Jong Il knows it is, what kind of "tough action" could we take? Where would the troops come from? We don't have enough military manpower, bandwith, nor money to escalate to war with North Korea.

There is nothing "wimpy" or "weak" about diplomacy. This is how 99% of the rest of the worlds' nations do business with each other. And, given that its impossible for the US, or any country for that matter, to always resort to military action to get other countries to act the way we want them to, then you have to rely on diplomacy.

It was the USSR that sent troops into NK during the cold war. The US followed suit by helping to defend SK. Why is the US the bad guy in the Korean War?

Who here said the US was the bad guy in the Korean War? Please READ the responses before replying. All that was said is that the Korean War in the 50's was indicative of the level of man and material expenditures required to successfully wage war in that terrain... and, given that the US military is stretched dangerously thin as is, attempting to start the Second Korean War would be an utterly stupid if not suicidal geopolitical manouver to attempt.

 

[ali777]

Yes, Ali, their are nations around the world that look for reasons to start crap with the US. NK is one of them - as well as Russia, Iran, Venezuea, Palestine, etc...

I agree with you on NK. They are a country in isolation, and probably very unpredictable.

But the others? Do you care to explain what your acusations are based on?

 

[MEANSTREET]

u talk the talk dudemon but ur views are totally skewered and bias. verdict = bullshit!

 

[MEANSTREET]

ur bullet point about russia was good. replace russia with the good ol USA and georgia with Iraq and u got urself a pretty much identical history with russia. cept u guys just got stuck in and wasted urselves!

 

[The Gardener]

No hard feelings at all, dudemon. I appreciate the vigorous exchange of ideas.

 

[Hammy070]

Dudemon,

I am curious as to the provenance of your information. I however, have little curiosity in regards to it's scholarly integrity, which I feel is exceeded in value by a rats' scrotum and perhaps almost rivals that of the squeezed pus of an orangutans' lymph node...(almost).

 

[ClayShaw]

Well, let's see: for starters our pres. is a liberal, our Sec'y of State (Clinton) is a liberal, and the Congress is liberal, as well as much of the House of Reps. Not to mention all the liberal appointees in the new administration.

I find it interesting that NKorea waited until the US government is almost completely run by liberals and pacifists before they got bold with their nukes.

Gee, what a surprise! :roll: There's no correlation there! :roll: Puleeez!

They are getting agressive with the nukes because they know that there will be no consequences.

It's only a matter time before the other global "trouble-makers" (i.e., Iran, Palestine, Russia, Venezuela, etc) will follow suit.

Our own US government will do absolutely nothing but feeble attempts at "sanctions" - which will be laughed at in the world terrorist community.

It's only a matter of time before the US is attacked again by terrorists. Anyways, this time it could very well be nuclear or biological.

1) Bush didn't do much with N. Korea. They tried the "6 party talks". I'm sure Kim Jong-Il watches the news. He knows that with Iraq and Afghanistan going simultaneously, no to mention the patronage of Russia and China, there is little to no chance of an American invasion.
2) The N. Koreans have been testing missiles well before Obama came into office, although I think there might be some bit of "testing" a new administration.
3) Liberal appointees like Bob Gates, the Sec Def? Also, HRC has always been a "hawkish" dem. She's no Kucinich.
4) There's no such thing as "Palestine".

 

[ClayShaw]

I'm done commenting here. Bush didn't do enough about NK, neither did Clinton before him. If Clinton had put his foot down back in the 1990's NK would not have nuclear bombs in the first place. This is EXACTLY what Iran is doing NOW.

We can't leave things up to the UN council becasue the UN is completely useless and worthless. They are weak, and will never do anything about anything. The US always has to take the initiative.

Today I seen that new "sanctions" are being placed on NK and China is joining our side. This is all fine and dandy. But how long is it going to be before NK tests another nuke and announces it to the world? How long before NK tests more long-range missiles? Short range missiles?

Not long at all.

RE: Palestine

OK, well I guess Palestine is called "West Bank" now or is it called Gaza Strip? I'm not sure. But I do know that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that terrorizes Israel. And, Hezbollah is sponsored by "A" government - Syria perhaps??

This thread was about "North Korea" and because I mentioned "Palestine" and "Iran," ALli777 got all excited when I compared NK to Iran and the Palestinians.

So, there you have my LAST comments on this thread. I am through here. I have sadi what I wanted to say and that's all. That's why I apologized.

It seems that no matter what I write in this forum is ALWAYS attacked no matter what it is. So, I'm through in this thread because what I say means nothing and I know that I will continualy be attacked on here. I have been branded here as a "neocon" and no matter what I say will be wrong on here, even though I am politically "in the middle." Because I dared to say one thing that doesn't coincide with the liberal "agenda" I have been attacked on here profusely and I will not continue to take the abuse.

I believe you're confusing Hezbollah with Hamas. Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization, funded by Iran and Syria. Israel fought a war with Hezbollah (and lost) in 2006. Hamas is a Palestinian (terror/gov't.) organization that is active in Gaza, Fatah (the party of the Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas) is active in the West Bank.
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be "Palestine", if it existed. Thats why the Israeli's are settling those areas, in direct violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. To make sure that an independent Palestinian state never exists.
I don't want to turn this into an Israel/Palestine thread, but I can't necessarily blame the Palestinians for wanting to determine their own government. I'm not denying Israel's right to exist, I'm denying it's right to settle territory it conquered in 1967.
Back on topic. Dudemon, what would you have liked to see Clinton/Bush do about NK, and what would you like to see Obama do?
I haven't read through the whole thread, so I didn't see the attacks. Don't take my posts, even when I disagree with you, as attacks. I really try not to make personal attacks. This part of the site is for time-killing debate.

 

[ClayShaw]

I actually was a poli-sci major, and trust me, it doesn't make anyone more authoritative on these issues. Not at all.
I agree with much of what you said, the only problem I have with it being that you don't want to bluff, because if KJI (love the acronym) calls that bluff, we're in trouble. I think that at this point, a real war with N. Korea would mean a return to the draft. They have a huge army. Maybe if we did something like Serbia in the late 1990's where its strictly an air war, but even then we'd need a fool proof method to make sure KJI didn't nuke Japan/S. Korea.
I really think that all he wants is attention and cash. They can barely feed their people, and if the people get hungry enough (supposedly they eat bark), they might actually take action against their government.
Clearly, he's doing something. I've read lots of speculation that it has a lot to do with the succession of power in N. Korea, and a lot of speculation that this is his way of testing a new administration.
In the end, he must want something, and I wouldn't be willing to do anything for him (carrots) without him agreeing to a serious, regular inspection regime, including the searching of all ships leaving N. Korea. I think the biggest danger is not him actually using one of his weapons, but selling one to the highest bidder (al-Qaeda?? Hezbollah?? Syria?? Iran??) I don't look at the tests as a threat to anyone in particular, more like a commercial.
The Iranians, in my view, are a whole different ball game. I saw Bill Maher's show, and he put it in a way that makes sense to me. He said he views N. Korea like "the retarded kid chained up in the basement", i.e. they're unpredictable and can't be trusted, while the Iranians are not to be trusted but are predictable in the sense that they act in their own self interest. I don't trust the "Supreme Leader" in Iran, but I suspect he knows that if he does anything to Israel, his country will be gone, instantly.
I also don't blame Iran for wanting nukes to counter Israel. The gov't in Israel is pretty hawkish/far right at the moment, and they may actually bomb Iran. Iran probably wants missiles as a deterrent. I'm not saying I'd let them get missiles, but I can understand why they want them.

 

[ClayShaw]

Without getting into any more "deep" discussions here, KJI is at it again. Now the assclown is threatening "nuclear war"

I think he really is just trying to get something out of the deal, and he's trying to see if "fear" will work on the current US administration.

The more I think about this crap, I think Obama should just blow the assclown off. Then see what kind of "new" threats KJI makes.

I agree, again, to a certain extent. I maintain that the fear with N. Korea should not be that THEY will use the weapons, but that they will SELL the weapons. But I agree, as far as responding to his every little outburst... whats the point?