» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/03/03 at 10:33 p.m.

So, North Korea kicks out the UN's IAEA inspectors, the United States attempts to "isolate" the country and Colin Powell says there's "No crisis."  
For number two on the axis of evil chart, North Korea is getting off pretty light.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 01/03/03 at 10:39 p.m.


Quoting:
So, North Korea kicks out the UN's IAEA inspectors, the United States attempts to "isolate" the country and Colin Powell says there's "No crisis."  
For number two on the axis of evil chart, North Korea is getting off pretty light.
End Quote



  I'd venture to guess that if N. Korea posessed developed oil fields, the U.S. position would be noticeably different.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Screwball54 on 01/03/03 at 10:46 p.m.

Just Because nothing has happened yet, dosen't mean that nothing will happen.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/03/03 at 10:49 p.m.

Mebbe, Screwball.  But everything I've been reading lately makes it sound like we want to stay way far away from provoking a war with North Korea.  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: SamRice Gamgee on 01/03/03 at 10:49 p.m.


Quoting:
Just Because nothing has happened yet, dosen't mean that nothing will happen.
End Quote



Your statement reminded me of some circa-Gulf War I Saturday Night Live skits where the reporters were asking the general to divulge classified information like when the troops were going to attack and the positions and numbers of said troops.  Sometimes the press can be so stupid.  :)

Sorry the war isn't being kind to your personal schedules, by the way ::)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Indy Gent on 01/03/03 at 10:51 p.m.

And the US also fears that North Korea will turn South Korea against us. News flash, Powell: Too late. :(

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 01/03/03 at 10:57 p.m.


Quoting:


Your statement reminded me of some circa-Gulf War I Saturday Night Live skits where the reporters were asking the general to divulge classified information like when the troops were going to attack and the positions and numbers of said troops.  Sometimes the press can be so stupid.  :)


End Quote



   This reminds me of watching SecDef Rumsfeld's press conferences...that guy is the artful dodger, brilliantly executed.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: SamRice Gamgee on 01/03/03 at 11:08 p.m.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2003/bo030104.gif

It seemed appropriate at the time :)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/03/03 at 11:26 p.m.

Unfortunately, North Korea has nuclear weapons.  And a million man army.  The United States has little or no options in this one.  North Korea has an arsenal of conventional and chemical weapons pointed at Seoul.  The word from Washington is Iraq is an aggressive threat, North Korea isn't.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/04/03 at 00:14 a.m.

North Korea is playing the "tease", if the US and NK were on a date, Uncle Sam would have would have to change his pants before it was over and NK would wait at least 6 days before returning his calls. ;)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/04/03 at 12:32 a.m.

What happened to "zero tolerance for rogue nations creating weapons of mass destruction?"  

I thought at heart this was a war against terrorists and nations that arm and harbor them.  There's no evidence that Al Qaeda is directly linked with Iraq or North Korea.  
North Korea exports weapons, Iraq does not.
North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, Iraq does not.
There's evidence that North Korea is preparing to build more nuclear warheads, there's no evidence Iraq is doing so.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: XenaKat13 on 01/04/03 at 01:08 p.m.

Odd thought here....

What if the "war on Iraq" is just a case of 'bait and switch'?

All the media outlets are focusing on Iraq and other points in the Middle East.  We seem to be getting far too much detailed information, far too quickly.  Remember how it was decided not to air taped shots of Osama Bin Laden in the belief he would be sending "coded messages" to sleeper cells?

What are the chances they want us all (including North Korea) to be paying attention to Iraq and what we might or might not do there in order to keep our actions (if any) against North Korea properly secret?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 01/04/03 at 02:03 p.m.


Quoting:
What happened to "zero tolerance for rogue nations creating weapons of mass destruction?"  

I thought at heart this was a war against terrorists and nations that arm and harbor them.  There's no evidence that Al Qaeda is directly linked with Iraq or North Korea.  
North Korea exports weapons, Iraq does not.
North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, Iraq does not.
There's evidence that North Korea is preparing to build more nuclear warheads, there's no evidence Iraq is doing so.
End Quote



I think I said something along similar lines in an earlier thread. It seems extraordinarily hypocritical that Iraq is being threatened with war because of a perceived threat they may pose, and yet an openly aggressive nation that already has the capacity to launch a nuclear missile is being rapped over the knuckles. It seems to me the more Iraq promises to appease the UN (not that Saddam's promises mean much, mind you), the more the US accuses them of lying. Yet North Korea sends troops into the demilitarised zone and reopens nuclear facilities they've been told not to reopen and America does nothing. Perhaps they think that invading Iraq will scare North Korea into backing down, but why would it? Iraq has a few tens of thousands and no nuclear weapons. They barely have the ability to shoot a rocket into Israel without them failing or getting blown up before they get there. North Korea has a standing army almost as large as that of the United States, and they have nuclear weapons... Wait, I'm beginning to understand now.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/04/03 at 08:46 p.m.


Quoting:


I think I said something along similar lines in an earlier thread. It seems extraordinarily hypocritical that Iraq is being threatened with war because of a perceived threat they may pose, and yet an openly aggressive nation that already has the capacity to launch a nuclear missile is being rapped over the knuckles.End Quote


If what's happening even amounts to a rap.  For us in the US, the hypocrisy is sharper because of President Bush's "zero tolerance" message after 9/11.  Iraq is a potential threat, North Korea is an immediate one.  The US seems to be pursuing a limited containment policy towards North Korea -- cut off aid, halt weapons transfer.  

Quoting: It seems to me the more Iraq promises to appease the UN (not that Saddam's promises mean much, mind you), the more the US accuses them of lying.End Quote


In my opinion, Saddam's greatest threat is as a cornered despot.  If anyone is a candidate for going out in a martyred, scorned earth fashion it's him.  


Quoting: Yet North Korea sends troops into the demilitarised zone and reopens nuclear facilities they've been told not to reopen and America does nothing. Perhaps they think that invading Iraq will scare North Korea into backing down, but why would it? Iraq has a few tens of thousands and no nuclear weapons. They barely have the ability to shoot a rocket into Israel without them failing or getting blown up before they get there. North Korea has a standing army almost as large as that of the United States, and they have nuclear weapons... Wait, I'm beginning to understand now.
End Quote


... and those don't love us in Seoul like they once useta.  North Korea has a million men under arms.  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/05/03 at 05:55 a.m.

Here's an article that I found today that I hopes illustrates my comment earlier about Korea acting the "tease".  

S. Korea Plan Seeks to Defuse Nuke Crisis
By HANS GREIMEL
Associated Press Writer

 
PHOTO COURTESY OF
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Print this article

Search web archive


South Korea stepped up efforts to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis Sunday, saying it would present a compromise plan to the United States within days and send a top envoy to Washington later in the week.

The announcement came as South Korea's deputy foreign minister, Kim Hang-kyung, was in Moscow asking Russia to help pressure the North to back down from its suspected nuclear weapons program. Russia is one of isolated, communist North Korea's few allies.

But North Korea's top military brass have vowed to increase the communist army's combat readiness and have accused the United States of trying to disarm it.

Leaders of the Korean People's Army convened Saturday in the North's capital, Pyongyang, according to the official Korean Central News Agency. The leaders "underscored the need to bring about a fresh turn in increasing the combat capability of its units," KCNA said.

A separate KCNA report Sunday blamed the United States for trying to "disarm" the isolated country with demands that North Korea scrap its nuclear programs, and called the United States the "main obstacle" of Korean reunification.

North Korea, however, left open the possibility of other countries mediating the dispute - an apparent nod to Seoul's attempts to push for a diplomatic resolution."If there are countries which are concerned for the settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, they, proceeding from a fair stand, should force the U.S. to remain true to the international agreement so that it may discontinue its unilateral behavior," KCNA reported.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the issue picked up pace Sunday.

Besides the talks in Moscow, meetings are also slated in Washington early this week among the United States, Seoul and Japan. Seoul's proposal to ease the standoff was expected to dominate the three countries' joint strategy session.

Details of Seoul's settlement plan were scant, but media reports suggested the proposal would require concessions from both Washington and Pyongyang.

On Sunday, Seoul announced it will send a high-level envoy to the United States later in the week for a second round of talks on ending the crisis.

Yim Sung-joon, national security adviser, will visit Washington from Tuesday to Thursday to meet his U.S. counterparts, the presidential Blue House said.

Yim will also visit Tokyo on Friday and Saturday to brief officials there on his U.S. trip and seek ways to strengthen the alliance between the countries.

Tokyo has already agreed with the United States to use diplomatic pressure in resolving the issue. Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and Secretary of State Colin Powell concurred on the approach during telephone talks late Saturday, a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said Sunday.

Meanwhile, South Korea's deputy foreign minister said Russian assistance was essential. Russian President Vladimir Putin has moved to reinvigorate Moscow's strong Soviet-era ties with North Korea."Russia's good relations with North Korea help create an efficient channel for dialogue," Kim Hang-kyung told reporters before Sunday's talks in Moscow, according to ITAR-Tass news agency.

Seoul's diplomatic offensive underlines its drive to mediate between its key ally, the United States, and its erstwhile enemy, North Korea. But brokering a deal won't be easy.

The United States refuses to talk until the North scraps its nuclear programs. North Korea insists Washington must take the first step by signing a nonaggression pact promising not to attack the isolated country.

The communist North alarmed the world in October by admitting to a U.S. envoy that it had a secret uranium-based nuclear weapons program, in violation of a 1994 accord.

As punishment, the United States and its allies halted oil supplies promised in the agreement. North Korea then announced it would reactivate its older plutonium-based nuclear program, saying it needs to restart a reactor to generate electricity.

The United States says the plutonium-based program could be used to build nuclear weapons. And Washington has indicated North Korea may already have two nuclear weapons and can build several more in short order.

One South Korean compromise being considered calls for the United States to resume oil shipments to North Korea, in return for the North abandoning its uranium nuclear development, media reported Saturday.

But State Department spokesman Richard Boucher indicated Friday that Washington would not compromise: "We have no intention of sitting down and bargaining again."The North and South have remained divided since the end of the 1950-53 Korea War, which ended not in a peace treaty but an armistice

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/05/03 at 10:53 a.m.


Quoting:
Here's an article that I found today that I hopes illustrates my comment earlier about Korea acting the "tease".  

S. Korea Plan Seeks to Defuse Nuke Crisis
By HANS GREIMEL
Associated Press Writer

 
One South Korean compromise being considered calls for the United States to resume oil shipments to North Korea, in return for the North abandoning its uranium nuclear development, media reported Saturday.

But State Department spokesman Richard Boucher indicated Friday that Washington would not compromise: "We have no intention of sitting down and bargaining again."The North and South have remained divided since the end of the 1950-53 Korea War, which ended not in a peace treaty but an armistice

End Quote



The second to the last paragraph, to my understanding, shows where the sands have shifted on this issue.  South Korea seems to be detaching as a US ally.  Back when they wouldn't have proposed that the United States make concessions.  

If the US does sign a non-aggression agreement, if they resume oil shipments, does that signify they're scrapping the zero-tolerance policy?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: John_Seminal on 01/05/03 at 01:54 p.m.

How long is this gonna go on? The korean war was fought by our grandfathers for christs sake. Why not just forgive and forget. I would be more interested in buying radios and tv's from them than fighting them. Look at Japan and Tiwan, they make tons of products we buy. Why not get off this war path and make stuff people like?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/06/03 at 10:31 p.m.

I don't know John, but this Christian Science Monitor articles has a couple of possible reasons for the current crisis:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0106/p01s02-woap.html

"From their own perspective they act rationally," says Alan Romberg, a former State Department Asia expert now at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington. "They are predictable."

Some observers believe this rationale relates, in particular, to the perceived threat posed by being listed by the US as part of an "axis of evil" - a designation that may have made the country's leaders feel pushed into a corner. As a result, some see North Korea taking whatever steps it can to avoid being in a similar position as Iraq, another "axis of evil" country. The goal, in this scenario, is to win a non-aggression pact with the US.

Another possible rationale: Using its nuclear program as part of a high-stakes bid for much-needed foreign aid.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/07/03 at 01:55 p.m.

This is where my money is at.

Quoting:

Another possible rationale: Using its nuclear program as part of a high-stakes bid for much-needed foreign aid.


End Quote

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/07/03 at 02:02 p.m.

Does anyone see this as a really bad stalemate?  I mean, the US can't really just sit back and say, "Oh, go ahead and have your nuclear weapons," whereas the DPRK can't bomb anyone or else they'd be wiped off the face of the earth, but then that would also take South Korea and a chunk of Japan with them...so complicated!

It's just posturing on a world-wide stage.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/07/03 at 07:34 p.m.

Stalemate?  You've got to be kidding, Earl.

Listen, Newsweek's current cover is North Korea's Doctor Evil Is Kim Jong Il a Bigger Threat Than Saddam?

Manufactured crisis - 1
Zero tolerance for the axis of evil - 0

South Korea, in a break from tradition, is urging the United States to make negotiated concessions.
MC - 2
ZT for the A of E - 0

Inspectors have found zilch in Iraq so far.  Inspectors found facilities for the manufacture of weapon's grade plutonium in North Korea and got the boot.  So why are they sending diplomats to the Far East and troops to the Middle East?
MC - 3
ZT for the A of E - 0

I don't see this as a stalemate at all.  So far, everything's been going North Korea's way.  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: L'Etranger on 01/07/03 at 07:41 p.m.

Yay, Axis Of Evil :D ! Is it too late to place our bets at the casino? :) :D ;D

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/07/03 at 07:45 p.m.


Quoting:
Yay, Axis Of Evil :D ! Is it too late to place our bets at the casino? :) :D ;D
End Quote



But don't check out the latest online New Yorker.  They have a piece on the fellow who came up with the "axis of evil" line (which began as the rather flaccid "axis of hatred").  According to the article, Korea was a late addition, almost an afterthought.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/07/03 at 08:24 p.m.

Ya know Steve I remember when the "axis of evil" statement was made and a lot of the press was suprised along with N. Korea.  Perhaps this an example of not asking for something you don't wish, that ol' self fullfilling prophecy that bites you in the a@@.

Quoting:


But don't check out the latest online New Yorker.  They have a piece on the fellow who came up with the "axis of evil" line (which began as the rather flaccid "axis of hatred").  According to the article, Korea was a late addition, almost an afterthought.
End Quote

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/07/03 at 10:03 p.m.

Patience, my young Padawans ;)  I'm sure if Dubya really wanted to North Korea would be deleted off the map.  For now they're using the diplomatic route.  What more do you want?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Hairspray on 01/07/03 at 10:08 p.m.


Quoting:
Patience, my young Padawans ;)  I'm sure if Dubya really wanted to North Korea would be deleted off the map.  For now they're using the diplomatic route.  What more do you want?
End Quote



I just had to jump-in for this -

LOL!!!

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/08/03 at 09:12 a.m.


Quoting:
Patience, my young Padawans ;)  I'm sure if Dubya really wanted to North Korea would be deleted off the map.  For now they're using the diplomatic route.  What more do you want?
End Quote



Earl, I'm just as alarmed by the yellow peril as you are, and I agree with you -- we should bomb that corner of the globe back to a radioactive stone age.

Unfortunately, one our Few and Proud aren't going to throw so much as a stick over the border without an act of congress.  The President can't go to war on his own initiative, he needs the support of Congress

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: SamRice Gamgee on 01/08/03 at 09:14 a.m.


Quoting:

Unfortunately, one our Few and Proud aren't going to throw so much as a stick over the border without an act of congress.  The President can't go to war on his own initiative, he needs the support of Congress
End Quote



Here's a thought:

W. -- "Okay, so this is the nuclear launching facility, cool!"

General -- "Careful, sir, you don't wanna--"

W. -- "Ooooops!"

*W. falls and lands on red button to North Korea*

W. -- "Awww, nuts...oh well"

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/08/03 at 09:33 a.m.


Quoting:


Here's a thought:

W. -- "Okay, so this is the nuclear launching facility, cool!"

General -- "Careful, sir, you don't wanna--"

W. -- "Ooooops!"

*W. falls and lands on red button to North Korea*

W. -- "Awww, nuts...oh well"
End Quote



Hmmm... he could trip while gagging on a pretzel... !!!
You're a genius, Earl!  An evil-genius, but genius nonetheless   ;D

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/08/03 at 09:35 a.m.

Hey, just to clarify...

So back in the 9/11/2001 days, they declared war on all of terrorism, right?  If W. lumps the DPRK into said "terrorism" bracket, does he not, as the commander in chief, have authority granted by Congress to blow the poopy out of them?

Just wondering.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/08/03 at 10:02 a.m.

He has to have specific authorization.  He has that for Iraq, hasn't for North Korea.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: SamRice Gamgee on 01/08/03 at 10:07 a.m.


Quoting:
He has to have specific authorization.  He has that for Iraq, hasn't for North Korea.
End Quote



Fair enough.  I think diplomacy in this case will work out.  North Korea, in my opinion, can't do much without getting wiped off the face of the earth.  It wouldn't hurt to take their muppet of a "president" out of power either.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/08/03 at 05:54 p.m.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=1008290

Above is a link to a good, short article on presidential war power

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/08/03 at 06:18 p.m.

Excellant link Steve, thanks.
I did not relise how weak the law was for Cogressional need to declare war.  

Quoting:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=1008290

Above is a link to a good, short article on presidential war power
End Quote

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/09/03 at 04:59 p.m.

Two articles that could be of interest to you:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/09/sproject.irq.blix.inspections/index.html

Iraq violating sanctions?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/09/nkorea.crisis/index.html

North Korea and USA ready to talk?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/09/03 at 05:08 p.m.

Talk? Yes.  Negotiate? No...

At least, according to the article, unless North Korea can verifiably demonstrate that their nuclear programs are being dismantled.

I don't know, Earl.   They're not talking to an Administration official, although the Administration seems to be sanctioning the talks.  I think, understandably and rightly, the US is unwilling to officially conduct talks with North Korea until they lose the nuclear arms.  Otherwise, you could interpret it as the US rewarding North Korea for its nuclear adventurism.  

It's hard to believe that all that North Korea wants is written assurance that the US won't attack them.  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/09/03 at 05:14 p.m.

It'll go something like this:

USA: Alright, no more nuclear weapons!

DPRK: But we wanna have nuclear weapons!  And give us some oil!

USA: Only if you get rid of the nuclear weapons.  And take all of our Steven Seagal movies.

DPRK:  Ooooh!  Steven Seagal, very well, you have a deal.

If not, I'm pretty confident the US can exert some pressure on China to throw down on North Korea.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/09/03 at 05:29 p.m.


Quoting:
It'll go something like this:

I'm pretty confident the US can exert some pressure on China to throw down on North Korea.
End Quote



What do you base your confidence on?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/09/03 at 05:34 p.m.

The fact that:

A) China has benefited greatly from friendly trading with the United States and can ill afford to lose American economic support (in terms of trading, but I guess that's obvious)

B) North Korea is openly defiant of the US of A, but would probably be better influenced by China, its neighbor full of fellow yellow people.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/09/03 at 05:42 p.m.

Unfortunately, not fellow mellow yellow fellows.  
Maybe, but... getting international support of miliatary action would be a lot more difficult with North Korea than it was Iraq.  And this doesn't address the fact that the mere fact that North Korea is negotiating concessions with the United States is a coup for North Korea.  If we sit at the table with their nuclear facilities intact they win before either side says a word.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/09/03 at 05:44 p.m.

Well, I never said I had all the answers.  I'm sure the US and North Korea don't have all the answers either.  But I'm VERY certain that Steven Seagal movies make excellent projectiles ;D

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/09/03 at 08:31 p.m.

Somehow, Earl, (almost) every fiber of my being tells me to attack your last post... but...

You let me write "fellow mellow yellow fellows," which I enjoyed.  And you joined me in splintering the evil pig's head... so, peace be with you, Earl.  I'll jump down your throat some other time.  http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/cool/cool030.gif

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: SamRice Gamgee on 01/09/03 at 10:24 p.m.

Do what you will ;)  I'm not that worried about it.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/10/03 at 06:46 a.m.


Quoting:
Do what you will ;)  I'm not that worried about it.
End Quote



You're outrageously reasonable sometimes, Earl...

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/10/03 at 09:25 a.m.

So, not that surprisingly, North Korea has backed out of the non-nuclear pact.  They're still willing to talk about it if the US starts giving them oil again (which seems kind of funny to me), but now they have the international community breathing down their necks even harder, AND the US and China are talking double time.

Interesting times we live in, no?  ;)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/20/03 at 03:54 a.m.

And now we see Russia and S. Korea are talking it up with N. Korea to get then to back away.  This is good, US isn't that bastard big brother so much, Russia is pledging protection and support.  Maybe US went the right path after all.  

Iraq is interesting too, Rumfield hinting that Saddam goes exile than won't be persecuted for war crimes.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/20/03 at 01:52 p.m.


Quoting:


Iraq is interesting too, Rumfield hinting that Saddam goes exile than won't be persecuted for war crimes.
End Quote



How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/20/03 at 01:54 p.m.


Quoting:


How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?
End Quote



Let's put them in sumo costumes and have them fight to the death.  That would be a huge hit on FOX Celebrity Boxing or MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch--LIVE ACTION!  ;D

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/20/03 at 01:56 p.m.


Quoting:


Let's put them in sumo costumes and have them fight to the death.  That would be a huge hit on FOX Celebrity Boxing or MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch--LIVE ACTION!  ;D
End Quote



::)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Race_Bannon on 01/20/03 at 03:48 p.m.

That's a good question Steve, thought that myself too.  I guess it's kind of a plea bargain, you leave quietly and promise not to come back, we let you get away with torture and murder that you have committed.  Lesser of two evils. :-/

Quoting:


How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?
End Quote

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 01/20/03 at 05:21 p.m.

As someone who has opposed an invasion of Iraq until recently, the hardest thing I've had to live with was the feeling that anti-war protesters in America and abroad were doing more to avoid war than Saddam.  I mean criminy, why expend efforts trying to avoid death and bloodshed for Iraqis when their own leader seems hell-bent for martyrdom?  
The best resolution, by far, would be for Saddam to opt for exile.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/22/03 at 09:31 a.m.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/22/koreas.talks/index.html

Hee hee hee...the guy in the picture has the worst porn stache ever.  ;D

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 02/13/03 at 10:47 p.m.

I'm glad someone in the region (the ones who SHOULD care about this) finally grew some balls.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/nkorea.nuclear/index.html

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: 80sRocked on 02/13/03 at 10:56 p.m.

Quoting:
I'm glad someone in the region (the ones who SHOULD care about this) finally grew some balls.

End Quote



ooooh, and the plot thickens... :D

It is good news, now hopefully they stick to their word and don't back down under pressure.  




Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: dagwood on 02/14/03 at 05:31 p.m.

Go Japan!

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/14/03 at 07:27 p.m.


Quoting:
Iraq is interesting too, Rumfield hinting that Saddam goes exile than won't be persecuted for war crimes.
End Quote



Quoting:How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimesEnd Quote



Idi Amin was never punished for his crimes against humanity. He's living in luxury as a guest of the Saudi royal family.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 02/15/03 at 02:03 p.m.


Quoting:
As someone who has opposed an invasion of Iraq until recently, the hardest thing I've had to live with was the feeling that anti-war protesters in America and abroad were doing more to avoid war than Saddam.  I mean criminy, why expend efforts trying to avoid death and bloodshed for Iraqis when their own leader seems hell-bent for martyrdom?
End Quote



   Hmm, I question your logic on this one, Steve.  I doubt the ordinary Iraqi citizen relishes death and destruction for themselves any more than the anti-war movement, but if you're implying the dissent within Iraq itself could and should be "doing more" to improve their own situation, then we're in complete agreement. 

Quoting:
The best resolution, by far, would be for Saddam to opt for exile.
End Quote



  Yes.  A best case scenario.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 02/15/03 at 02:16 p.m.


Quoting:
I'm glad someone in the region (the ones who SHOULD care about this) finally grew some balls.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/nkorea.nuclear/index.html
End Quote



   Japan has no military other than their Defense Force, which is relatively small. The full range of their defense is not designed for more than 1600 km from the main island. While they've been rethinking Article 9 of their constitution lately to assist in situations that might arise in SW Asia or Central Asia, there has been as yet no amendment to Art. 9. They have contributed to UN peacekeeping before, but never with armed troops, only administrative duties. Art. 9 is a renunciation of war; the constitution was written in 1946 by Douglass MacArthur.

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

  Japan was allowed to maintain the small defense force. I can't imagine with what they would threaten NK unless its the US 7th Fleet.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Rice Cube on 02/15/03 at 03:11 p.m.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

According to this, Japan's military spending and manpower is greater than the UK's, and their navy is one of the most formidable units in the world.  

Also, while they are not permitted to engage in open war, this does not preclude them from self-defense.  The fact that the DPRK floated a missile over Honshu a couple years ago and the current hostile state of the DPRK gives them the right to defend their interests.

Not to mention that North Korea is within 1600 km of Japan.  And the USA, if necessary, are bound by the agreement to come to Japan's aid in the event of an incursion or nuclear emergency.  I don't think it will come to that.  Japan's threat is a good deterrent for now.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/15/03 at 03:45 p.m.

I tend to agree with Rice. Japan has a non-aggression policy, but it takes its own defence very seriously. Any mobilisation of North Korea would be a direct threat to Japan and I have little doubt that the Japanese navy alone would almost be enough to reduce North Korea to dust. Japan once won a war against Russia, after all. NK's only real strength seems to be that they have nuclear warheads and don't seem to be afraid to use them. By all accounts their standing army wouldn't last five minutes.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/15/03 at 05:39 p.m.


Quoting:why expend efforts trying to avoid death and bloodshed for Iraqis when their own leader seems hell-bent for martyrdom?  

   Hmm, I question your logic on this one, Steve.  I doubt the ordinary Iraqi citizen relishes death and destruction for themselves any more than the anti-war movement, but if you're implying the dissent within Iraq itself could and should be "doing more" to improve their own situation, then we're in complete agreement. 
End Quote



No, I was referring to Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein.  It was always within his power to avoid this confrontation... he could have disarmed, as he was instructed to my the United Nations.  He could have proactively co-operated with the UN weapon inspectors, which he has not done.  He could have accounted for missing chemical and biological agents.  The burden of proof has been on Iraq.  Weapons inspections are a sham, and Hussein realizes that.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 02/15/03 at 06:18 p.m.


Quoting:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

According to this, Japan's military spending and manpower is greater than the UK's...End Quote



"According to some estimates, the unit costs of Japanese vehicles are three to ten times as expensive as those of the US vehicles. Similar price gaps exist between Japan and England, France, Germany and other European nations. It is believed that Russian equipment cost 30% less than equivalent US equipment. Given such huge discrepancies, Japan’s defense spending in reality is at about the same level with those of South Korea and Taiwan." - globalsecurity.org
  ...but, not greater than N. Korea's.

Quoting:...and their navy is one of the most formidable units in the world.End Quote



  I'll take your word for it. ;)  At least the Japanese navy boasts Aegis-class destroyers.

Quoting:...Also, while they are not permitted to engage in open war, this does not preclude them from self-defense.  The fact that the DPRK floated a missile over Honshu a couple years ago and the current hostile state of the DPRK gives them the right to defend their interests...End Quote



  I was never against Japan defending herself.  In fact, I'm all for it.

Quoting:Not to mention that North Korea is within 1600 km of Japan.  And the USA, if necessary, are bound by the agreement to come to Japan's aid in the event of an incursion or nuclear emergency.End Quote



  Yeah, like I said...  

Quoting:I don't think it will come to that.  Japan's threat is a good deterrent for now.
End Quote



  My point was Japan's military is more geared towards self defense close to it's borders than projection of military power over a given region.  Japan also has no missile defense system in place.
   Ultimately, the U.S. will come to the rescue.  Perhaps Japan and S. Korea should publicly enter a new alliance, instruct the US to remove her troops and cease negotiating on their behalf, and then look Kim straight in his eyes as proud people...*shrugs shoulders*

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Davester on 02/15/03 at 06:34 p.m.


Quoting:


No, I was referring to Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein.  It was always within his power to avoid this confrontation... he could have disarmed, as he was instructed to my the United Nations.  He could have proactively co-operated with the UN weapon inspectors, which he has not done.  He could have accounted for missing chemical and biological agents.  The burden of proof has been on Iraq.  Weapons inspections are a sham, and Hussein realizes that.
End Quote



  How about looking at it in this way...the burden of proof has always been on Saddam Hussein, not Iraq.
  Steve, I'm trying with all my might to help you avoid smashing this proverbial ant with a steamroller.... ;)

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/15/03 at 07:18 p.m.


Quoting:


  How about looking at it in this way...the burden of proof has always been on Saddam Hussein, not Iraq.
  Steve, I'm trying with all my might to help you avoid smashing this proverbial ant with a steamroller.... ;)
End Quote



Hussein is the representative leader of Iraq, not Kuala Lampur.  Unless and until that changes, the burden of proof rests with Iraq.  
What "ant" are we referring to?  The biological and chemical weapons that are unaccounted for?  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/15/03 at 07:24 p.m.


Quoting:


Hussein is the representative leader of Iraq, not Kuala Lampur. End Quote



I don't understand what you mean here.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/15/03 at 07:45 p.m.


Quoting:


I don't understand what you mean here.
End Quote



Davester is drawing the distinction between Saddam and Iraq and is holding Saddam responsible for meeting United Nations' inspection demands.  At least, I think that's the distinction he's making.  In this case I don't how relevant it is to draw the distinction.    Didn't mean to throw you off...

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/16/03 at 03:58 a.m.

Yes but I don't understand what Kuala Lumpur has to do with anything.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/16/03 at 10:29 a.m.


Quoting:
Yes but I don't understand what Kuala Lumpur has to do with anything.
End Quote



Just like the sound of it.  I could have said Saddam isn't the mayor of Cleveland just as easily.  

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/16/03 at 09:21 p.m.

OK! I just got what you meant.  :) Sorry, I was having a stupid moment...

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/16/03 at 09:54 p.m.

N.Korea Says Sure of Winning Nuclear War with U.S.

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea (news - web sites) said on Monday that victory would be certain for the communist state in any nuclear war with the United States thanks to Pyongyang's "army-first" political system.
Victory in a nuclear conflict will be ours and the red flag of army-first politics will flutter ever more vigorously," state radio said, reported by South Korea (news - web sites)'s Yonhap news agency.

"Our victory is certain and the future ever more radiant," it said, touting the dominance of the army in the world's most heavily militarized society.




Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Cyclops the Anteater on 02/17/03 at 01:08 a.m.

Here's a non-broken link to the story you posted, Steve.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/index.html


They're either really confident or monumentally stupid.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/17/03 at 03:45 a.m.

"The Security Council has the power to impose sanctions on North Korea -- something Pyongyang has said would mount to a declaration of war."

So it would be a declaration of war by the UN, which isn't a country, or even a government? Or by the Security Council? Does that mean they would be going to war with Russia, China, Germany, France, the US, and the UK all at once? And they have how many nuclear weapons? Two, compared to the nuclear arsenal of the Security Council nations?

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Goreripper on 02/17/03 at 05:42 p.m.

Yes, I think stupid is the key word here. Except for the North Koreans themselves, I don't think anyone would doubt that if they fired off a nuclear warhead at anyone, they would be destroyed almost immediately.

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Steve_H on 02/17/03 at 08:18 p.m.

And today North Korea threatens to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.  With war imminent in the Middle East, the potentially deadlier threat continues to fester and grow...

Subject: Re: North Korea

Written By: Mr.NiceGuy on 02/20/03 at 01:02 a.m.

If you want to cut the American censor crap prevailant in todays mainstream media, anyone with a shortwave radio should give a listen to the "Voice Of North Korea" on the following frequencies (kHz): 6195, 7140, 9345, 11735, 13760, and 15180 kHz.  They've been threatening to nuke and destroy the west for at least 10 years that I have been casually listening.  That is one messed up and dangerous country.  A military spending habit that rivals some superpowers but they'll let their own people starve, while simultaneously accept a billion dollars from the USA... kinda reminiscent of the USA paying the Taliban their wages right up until 1998.  Hmmm...  :P