North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

steelvadi writes "North Korea has now admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. It was also stated that N. Korea will not be reentering negotiations on disarmament for the foreseeable future. "

Comments

Korea

[shreevatsa]

In Korea, only old people have nuclear weapons.... Uh, nevermind :)

Re:Korea

[shreevatsa]

Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?

Re:Korea

[grub]

But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?

You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking? Of course, they have one of the most militarized borders in the world with presence ot US troops all that after a war that killed millions in the 50s

Re:Korea

[fucksl4shd0t]

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

NOt until the country was stable again, anyway, and at least partially rebuilt. Since neither of those things have yet happened, it's too early to use this sort of 'fact' to dismiss Bush's motivation.

Here's a real question. How much oil could we get from Iraq when they were under UN sanctions? Iirc, France got most of the oil that came out of the OIl for Food program Saddam abused. How could we get the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq (so we could buy oil from them)? One of two ways:

1. If Saddam were a compliant dictator, he wouldn't be a dictator. So lifting the sanctions peacefully while Saddam was in there was unlikely.

2. Invade them and replace their government. No matter how angry the UN got at us, they'd still have to realize they can't visit the sins of Saddam's regime on the new government, no matter how bad we fuck it up. So the sanctions will be removed (or rather, rendered obsolete), and, Bush's Words, he'll have "secured American interests in the country".

Re:Korea

[jasonbowen]

Getting Oil from there takes a lot of security which jacks up the price. It's basic economics. No direct threat to the US? They are developing or have the capability to hit the West Coast of the US. Do you realize how many people starve in North Korea because of their tyrants policies? Do you realize what a repressive police state it is? Go ahead and go there, if you can get in, and stand on the street corner and yell about how Kim is a bastard and see what happens. Saddam committed attrocities but a lot are happening in this world right now, the whole moral issue works as a good smoke screen to people like you that want to believe everthing that their government does is right.

Re:Korea

[L0k11]

I'm sorry. But whats fair enough for other destabilising countries such as say Israel (holds match to karma). Or even for that matter the USA (karma is now flames). Should be fair enough for all nations. Just because a country is branded "an outpost of tyranny" doesn't mean it does not have the right to defend itself.

I mean you Americans can hardly gush about non-proliferation when you have enough nukes to turn the entire world to glass several hundred times over. And dont try and tell me that you are any more responsible and the world is much safer with them in your hands... to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people.

Nuclear weapons are a problem the entire of humanity faces not just the Asian area.

Re:Korea

[IBeatUpNerds]

if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

Are you serious? This is about money and lots of it. Oil is the channel through which the money is made. How do you make more money, but lowering prices or raising them? We all know how generous the oil companies are...

there was a majority support for the US to invade Iraq. Dems and Reps.

Sure, if you A) Trust what the media reports, and B) dis-regard what the rest of the world thinks. But I guess we can disregard what the rest of the world thinks, because Iraq was dead-set to attack the US. If that was the case, then maybe we should ask why.

Re:Korea

[Phillup]

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

Only if you assume competence in the ability to lead, plan and meet goals.

I'm not willing to assume that with the characters at hand...

If you assume that the players are stunningly incompetent, you end up with exactly what we have today.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Record profits for oil companies? Hmm. Are you completely blind?

You're trying to suggest that the gas companies are just having to raise their prices because of the costs of oil, not to create profits. Do you understand how the futures market works? Sheesh.

Re:Korea

[Council]

Have you forgotten the mass genocide Saddam has commit, even to his own people? If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

There are maybe a dozen leaders in recent times who definitely killed more civilians in more brutal manners than Saddam. Obvious examples include Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Brezhnev, Tojo, and a handful of dictators in Africa.

Saddam was a bad guy, but let's try to keep the facts reasonably straight.

Re:Korea

[jallison]

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN? We are looking at 2 bucks a gallon in the midwest.

Others have already commented on why you shouldn't expect oil prices to drop. I'll just add that at $2/gallon it's still cheaper than bottled water. If you still don't like the price you can always try using less of it.

If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

No question Saddam is/was a bad guy. But I suggest you read up on nice folks like Stalin and Pol Pot. And lets not forget that freedom from Saddam was not the #1 reason the US invaded Iraq. The reason given was the "proof" of the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the "fact" that Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States.

Re:Korea

[Agrippa]

Over 80% (and growing every year) of the oil from the Middle East goes to countries outside of the US.

Protecting the oil in the Middle East wasnt just about America, take off your blinders. Would you have liked China to intervene instead in 5/10 years when its economy was being hamstrung by ineffecient access to oil?

Also, what do you think would of happened to the Middle East if they didn't have oil? Guess what, no one would really care. The various factions in the region would hack each other to pieces in religious/ethnic wars for decades, just like what is happening in the mass genocide in several parts of Africa, because frankly, if you don't have a resource the world cares about, the world doesn't care about you.

Oil is what keeps the world interested in not letting the Middle East degenerate into the 7th century.

.agrippa.

Re:Korea

[The Spoonman]

NOt until the country was stable again, anyway, and at least partially rebuilt. Since neither of those things have yet happened, it's too early to use this sort of 'fact' to dismiss Bush's motivation.

Okay, then, here's one: the US only imports 18% of its oil from the middle east. The remainder is imported from Canada, South America, an Russia. Why? Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over. The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market. "The rubes don't know we don't get our oil from Iraq, we can gouge all we want!"

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean you Americans can hardly gush about non-proliferation when you have enough nukes to turn the entire world to glass several hundred times over. And dont try and tell me that you are any more responsible and the world is much safer with them in your hands... to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people.

Yes, after being preemptively hit and engaging in four years of so-called "world war".

Bottom line is, nice guy, bad guy, no matter. It isn't in the US interests (or Japan's, or Australia's, or for that matter Western Europe's interests) for us to allow Iran or North Korea to develop, use, or peddle nukes. Looks like we're too late on at least one count.

For the record, the Iraq conflict should have never happened IMO. On the other hand, when somebody wields the power to green glass a US city (and isn't a friendly), we should act.. with prejudice. And if one gets used on a US city? Well lets just say those little 50kt fuckers Korea is probably developing won't save them from a MIRV with an aggregate yield in the multimegaton range. Read my lips: the outrage in the US will be so great that the entire North Korean nation will be deleted.

Fuck the moral high ground.. might makes right.

There.. it's been said.

Re:Korea

[TTL0]

Just because a country is branded "an outpost of tyranny" doesn't mean it does not have the right to defend itself.

Excuse me ? just what country has "declared war" on N. Korea ?!? who cares enough to attack it ? this isn't the 50's where you have the commies using Korea as a battleground to fight the free world.

anyway it's time to gear up the 4077th

Re:Korea

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ok, you've definitely pointed out that the situation is more complicated than either my simplification or the GP that I replied to. (Was it you? Too lazy to look right now)

the US only imports 18% of its oil from the middle east.

Only? That's enough to seriously effect inflation. It only takes 3-5% marketshare to start a price war with the others, and the middle east has 18%? That's a *lot* in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Korea

[kmhebert]

North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US
North Korea is selling nuclear technology around the world. What could threaten us more than that?

I don't recall the N. Korean ministry commiting mass genocide recently
Actually, millions of North Koreans died in the 1990's due to the official "juche" policy of self-sufficiency. It was essentially an official policy of mass starvation.

North Korea is the worst place on Earth. There are no rights in North Korea. The average North Korean would have happily sold themselves into slavery to live in Saddam Hussein's Iraq: that's how bad it is there. As for the "predictability" of Kim Jong Il, let me remind you of the folly of putting one's trust in dictators.

Re:Korea

[the_mushroom_king]

I've heard from S. Korean friends that in N. Korea that no brids sing or chrip because most have been caught and used a food. The populace is in a continual status of near starvation, while nearly all food produced is diverted to keep the military fed.

To top it off, the place is run by a paranoid meglomaniac. Not a great place to live. -- TMK

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how many people starve in North Korea

Do you realize how mean people are just plain starving, but for some reason no-one gives a shit about them either

Nearly 30 million Africans could be facing famine within months.

Estimates from UN agencies, African governments and relief charities put the number at risk in the Horn of Africa at about 15 million, over 14 million in southern Africa and hundreds of thousands in the Sahel region of West Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2449527.st m

yeah freedom terrorists WMD liberty woooh !!

Re:Korea

[Catbeller]

"You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?"

Yes. We defined them as part of the Axis of Evil, and pledged their destruction. Jesus.

Re:Korea

[xstonedogx]

We are looking at 2 bucks a gallon in the midwest.

Bleh. The last time I visited the midwest I paid $1.699 and loved it. $2/gallon is nothing. Since I moved out of the midwest, I've paid less than $2/gallon once. It was $1.999.

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

Maybe eventually, once they've got control of it and OPEC no longer has a virtual monopoly. Of course, that's assuming the oil company isn't just going to take part in their monopoly and profit off of us. We've already shown we're willing to pay. Baa.

But oil prices going down are largely irrelevant to what's going on. It works like this:

American taxpayer money goes in.
Bush oil buddies get profit out.
If it helps, think of it like a hugely inefficient theft and money laundering scheme.

Consider that Iraq owes several countries billions of dollars because of loans Saddam took out. There's the feel good story that we're "forgiving" the debt, but really the deal is Iraq gives up it's economic sovereignity and control of it's natural resources and we give up a tiny $4 billion. Yay us. (Taxpayers paid that $4 billion and we're still paying many more billions for the war, but it's the corporations who get access to the oil.)

So now there's a nation which can vote (yay?) for a leader who really has no choice but to do what the foreign oil companies want him to do. Oh, and if they want to eat, they get to work for those oil companies.

Gee, I can see how we liberated them and how it's not about oil.

Re:Korea

[jasonbowen]

Does any one groups starving take precedent over anothers? The original poster was making references to attrocities, I think Kim Jung Il does quite a good job, maybe even better than Saddam, of repressing his people. I was addressing the original posters claims and am not arguing about famine or starvation.

Re:Korea

[Edward Faulkner]

If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

If you look at history, you sound confused.

20th Century Civilians Killed:
Stalin=4x10^7
Mao=3.5x10^7
Hitler=1.2x10^7
Ot toman Empire(Armenian Genocide)=2x10^6
Pol Pot=1x10^6
Saddam=6x10^5
Hutu-Tutsi Rivalry=5x10^5

As you can see, Hitler's not even close to first, and Saddam is way down at the bottom. Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda.

Sources:
this article
khmer rouge
Saddam

Re:Korea

[calstraycat]

Have you forgotten the mass genocide Saddam has commit, even to his own people? If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

Not even close. You would have to have a very limited knowledge of history to come to that conclusion. Every heard of Pol Pot? That's a example from recent history. There are hundreds of other examples if you look back thousands of years.

I'm still amazed people buy into the "we had bad intelligence" argument regarding WMDs. Heck, Karl Rove even admitted that the WMD angle was just the most sellable excuse rather than the real reason. The plan for invading Iraq was developed in the late nineties. When the folks who developed the plan came into power in 2000, the invasion of Iraq became inevitable. It would have occurred had their been no 9/11. It would have occurred even if the WMD claims were discredited in advance. The "we need to save the people of Iraq from this evil dictator" excuse was not mentioned until it became clear that there were no WMDs.

For the record, I'm fine with the idea that some people feel that it's the responsibility of the US to save people from evil dictators even though I don't think we should. But, I'm surprised when act as though the "we must save the people of Iraq" was the original intention.

I also don't agree with you on North Korea. They scare the hell out of me. I just don't understand your position. It was important to invade Iraq (which was not a threat to the US and had essentially no viable army and no WMDs) simply to save it's people from their leader, but we need not worry about a sophisticated, first-world nation with a massive army and nuclear weapons?

Now, their dictator is completely nutz, but very predictable. US intel knows that.

Where did you get that idea? Do you have inside sources? Since when are crazy people predictable? You want to blame US intelligence blunders for the WMD fiasco re: Iraq, but then turn around and say we should trust US intelligence re: N. Korea?

Saddam is an evil man. But, Iraq was never a threat to the US or it's allies. North Korea is a threat to the US and our allies. I, for one, don't believe it's the responsibility of the US to save nations from their leaders. I don't believe in nation building. I do believe in protecting the nation from real threats. North Korea is a real threat.

Re:Korea

[Catbeller]

Why do you assume that the Bush administration, oil men all, want to bring down the price of oil?

It's about the control of the oil, not the price of it. I made the same mistake in thinking myself. I thought they'd flood the market with cheap oil and break the cartel pricing stucture, and save Bush's economic hide much as Reagan was saved by OPEC's crackup in the early '80's.

But it seems they have a bigger agenda, controling Asia/China's access to the petro they need, while reaping huge private awards in the oil industry. Bush is a faux-free marketer: he will not interfere in the price of oil. Flow of blood, no problem, flow of oil -- he's got a problem.

Re:Korea

[Catbeller]

Um, afghanistan and iraq have degenerated into the 7th century. We boosted the holy warriors into power in Afghanistan in the eighties because the fought the Ruskies. We just kicked out a stable secular ruler in Iraq, which is being replaced by a Shiite theocracy, popularly elected.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market. "The rubes don't know we don't get our oil from Iraq, we can gouge all we want!"

That smells true. Any time there's an oil "crisis" as reported by the media, the prices at the pump go up immediately. When oil is reported to be declining in world market price, it always takes a few weeks for the pump prices to go down. Reason giving is "oh, it takes about that long for the cheap oil to get processed through the refinery."

Based on the empirical data, i call bullshit on the oil companies. It looks like price gouging to me.

Re:Korea

[violently_ill]

what you're saying would apply equally well to nazi germany or the soviet union. just because these countries were branded outposts of tyranny does not mean they didn't have a right to defend themselves, right? you know that america-bashing is out of control when people defend north korea's nuclear program simply as a springboard to criticize the US.

Re:Korea

[jIyajbe]

"...Most of you also forget that there was a majority support for the US to invade Iraq. Dems and Reps. They were all using the same intel..."

Correction: They were all using the same flawed, incorrect, falsified intel.

And now there IS a majority OPPOSITION to the US's invasion of Iraq.

Re:Korea

[Catbeller]

"North Korea is selling nuclear technology around the world. What could threaten us more than that?"

That was Pakistan. Huge scandal, physicist sold nuke tech around the world, got pardoned last year?

We don't seem to be invading Pakistan. Where bin Laden is. Which sold the weapons tech.

Curious.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean you Americans can hardly gush about non-proliferation when you have enough nukes to turn the entire world to glass several hundred times over.

Yes, but we're more responsible, and the world is much safer with them in our hands.

Re:Korea

[Agrippa]

The leading ticket in the Iraqi elections is indeed Shiite, with a few leading clerics, but their platform was to avoid theocratic rule like their Iranian neighbors.

Afghanistan is/was 7th century precisely because they don't have many oil reserves, and thusly, no one cared about what happened to them after the Cold War until they started exporting terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden hadn't been based in Afghanistan and the Taliban didn't support global terrorism then they would still be in power, still oppressing their people, still violating human rights, and almost no one would care.

.agrippa.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Riddle me this: If the invasion of Iraq was so just, why did he have to lie to justify it?

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan is one of the top opium producing countries in the world.

The oil will eventually run out. The taste for drugs doesn't.

Re:Korea

[kmhebert]

"North Korea is selling nuclear technology around the world. What could threaten us more than that?"

That was Pakistan. Huge scandal, physicist sold nuke tech around the world, got pardoned last year?

I agree with your assessment of Pakistan. I lost faith with the Bush Administration when they claimed they would "make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them" and then proceeded to do exactly that when the mujuheddin crossed into Waziristan after Tora Bora. However, there is mounting evidence that North Korea is, indeed, spreading nuclear technology around the world.

Re:Korea

[furrywithwings]

%Gubmint:rm -rf \Korea? Are you sure? (Y/n?) %Gubmint:

Re:Korea

[dwillden]

Excuse me ? just what country has "declared war" on N. Korea ?!? who cares enough to attack it ? this isn't the 50's where you have the commies using Korea as a battleground to fight the free world.

A state of war has existed since the cease fire that ended the Korean war. No peace treaty has ever been signed, just a ceasefire. So officially, South Korea, the US, and even to a degree the UN are still at war with North Korea.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

worst post ever

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

But they don't have any oil...?

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

Everyone on investment area, knew that when the war begun, the oil prices would go up. So it was not a surprice for Bush. You do know, that Bush is on the side of rich people? Those are the same people who own the oil company stocks etc.

Another reason: US weapons were getting old, only way to replace them is to destroy the old bombs. What could have been a better place to destroy the old weapons?

Also, US is very dependant on oil. Imagine what would happen if the rest of the world would deside not to give oil for the US. By conquering oil countries, US makes sure that it would not happen.

Re:Korea

[xfmr_expert]

Regarding the oil in Iraq, there's more to it. First, there were billions of bucks in reconstruction cash. Of course, that would have come with the invasion of Iran or N. Korea as well. The oil from Iraq, not controlled by OPEC, is beginning to have an impact on the oil prices. Watch the price of crude when they take out a pipeline over there. I don't think there is a direct correlation between crude prices and prices at the pump. If crude drops radically, the petrol companies cry about refining capacity. Simple fact is both Iran and N. Korea were indisputably greater threats to us in the U.S. than Iraq ever was. Kim Jung Il (or however you spell it) is by many accounts a murderous thug, doing whatever it takes to stay in power. They have also become a center for drug trafficing, money laundering and other not-so-nice activities. However, the simple fact is invading Iran or N. Korea would be a major bloodbath. Iraq was easy pickins by comparison.

Re:Korea

[SparafucileMan]

Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN? We are looking at 2 bucks a gallon in the midwest.

And you think we have it bad? Go try to buy gas in China or Europe or Japan... it's alot more expensive and the rise in oil prices hurts them alot more than it hurts us. That's the whole point, u know. It's not about saying "ok, we now make oil free for U.S. for teh win!"... it's about controlling where the oil goes. You'll notice the Iraqi Admin is about to hand out a bunch of contracts to American firms which aren't exactly going to be shipping oil to China when they come knocking.

Control over oil is NOT the same thing as control over the price of oil. Price is just this made up thing that is highly relative. Not having oil for your tanks when the time comes, well, that's a little more concrete, wouldn't u say? That's why Hitler lost, after all...

Also, there is the military factor. Do you know how much it costs to get fuel out to, say, tanks in Iraq? I forget the exact number but it's like $40-$300 bucks PER GALLON. All of that comes from transportation costs...do you think they really give a fuck that the price went up by $.50 for domestic consumers? When the military funds half the economy?!

Geez...

As far as N. Korea not commiting mass genocide... you clearly haven't been looking at the figures regarding how many people are starving there on a daily basis, have you? It's as full blown as genocide get's buddy.

And about Iraq: go look at the damn history will you. Everyone in every administration has known what the deal is with Saddam. While he was busy slaughtering his own people in the 80s (and yes, everyone knew about it. it was in the damn paper for christs sake), we were shipping him the weapons to do so. So don't give me this crap about how we wen't in there to save Saddam's people.

Yet here you are knocking the "sheep"... you fucking moron, go read a history book or at least the damned papers.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

The average North Korean would have happily sold themselves into slavery to live in Saddam Hussein's Iraq

actually, I think it's the minority, don't forget that they're completly brainwashed to love their leader.
We're talking about a country that can send you in goulags if you say the wrong things about the leader, puts pictures of the leader in every rooms, build 30 meters statues of propaganda,etc...

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously to protect the little bit of karma I do have from the remarkably left wing slashdot crowd.

I wholeheartedly agree that Israel is the single most destabilizing force in the region. hell maybe in the whole world. Before you reduce me to flamebait, note that more than one Israeli agrees that the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel is shameful. ( http://www.israelshamir.net/ )

Your second paragraph is perhaps the most ridiculous short-sighted thing I've ever read on slashdot. Japan tried a sucker punch that failed, and that got us in that war. No one else is resonsible for what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Japan made that bed. China was begging us to protect them from Japan just like the mealy-mouthed Europeans were begging us to stop Hitler from goose-stepping across the whole damn continent. If we'd have waited just a few weeks, Germany would have completed it's heavy water experiments and they were already WAY ahead of everyone else in carry vehicles. The cost of lives was great, but the true measure of lives saved will thankfully never be known.

I'm so sick of "USA" bashing. We give more to the world per capita than any other nation on earth. We subsidize purchases of food stuffs to give to other nations. We are the single largest contributor to the United Nations. Most countries on the planet owe us enough to make our budget deficit disappear, heck most of Europe hasn't paid back nor do they have any plans to pay us back for the Marshall Plan from the 1940's. Are we perfect? No, but you'd be hard pressed in convincing me, and most others, that France would be better off under Nazi control, just like the Kurds would be better off under Saddam Hussein.

Re:Korea

[cparisi]

wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN
The war is still on, for christs sake. Besides, if you account for inflation the gas prices are lower now than they were in the 70's

topped only by Hitler
Hitler was bombing and invading every country he could. There is a slight difference between Nazi Germany and present day Iraq
majority support for the US to invade Iraq
Only half true. The support was given as long as invasion was a last resort, and diplomacy did not work.
Also, the Bush administration made it clear that if you did not give support, then you in fact were supporting terrorists.

Re:Korea

[Specter]

"The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market."

Or could it be that American's demands for gasoline are relatively in-elastic and the war just makes a good excuse for raising prices.

Re:Korea

[SubTexel]

And this somehow makes it better? Oh he only killed a couple hundred thousand, so he's just a bad guy, not a really bad guy. ??

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget Libya, which has been quietly buying new weapons now that the sanctions were lifted by Bush in return for their turning over all their old "WMD's".

Re:Korea

[Proc6]

Yeah really. Saddam's only killed 6x10^5 civillians, that's nothing, a speedbump, sheesh. Educate yourself, killing that many civillians is all in a days work for any competent respectable leader, disagreeing is just buying into the propaganda.

Re:Korea

[melvin_the_barbarian]

I agree that Kim Jong Il would be insane to actually use one of those weapons, although I wouldn't be entirely sure that he isn't. There are people in this world who hate themselves and the United States enough that they could and would use such a weapon. The greater danger, as I see it is that the Dear Dictator might sell a working nuke to terrorists.

Anyone who's tempted to think that there's any virtue or legitimacy in Kim Jong Il should watch Children of the Secret State, a documentary about life inside North Korea. If even a portion of that film is true, then North Korea is a cold, bleak Hell of despair and now it's a cold, bleak Hell of despair with nukes.


Children of the Secret State
(http://times.discovery.com/convergence/ins idenort hkorea/video/video.html)

Re:Korea

[polar red]

sigh.
Any bully will sooner or later get a punch. In this case : a nuclear punch. Go to any schoolplayground. You think I can't make this comparison ? You overestimate homo sapiens sapiens. I'll go back down to my nuclear shelter now.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you forgotten the mass genocide Saddam has commit, even to his own people?"

Speaking of sheep, this is just another piece of Washington spin that refuses to go away. Saddam didn't gas his own people, he gassed Kurds. Saying that they were "his" people was like saying the Jews were Hitler's people. (Assuming for the sake of argument that it is less reprehensible to murder strangers than your own citizens.)

And besides, governments don't go to war for emotional or altruistic reasons, they do it for money and power. They just use the emotional strings to tug the sheep along for the ride. Don't forget that was American gas descending on Kurdish villages from French-made Mirages.

Re:Korea

[ckaminski]

Except taking out Stalin was a lose-lose proposition... :-/

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he was a really bad guy, but not an atrocious guy. An innefectual genocider (by the scale of 100K v. 10M). Calling Hussein the next worst thing from Hitler artificially raises his infamy, and takes attention away from the more horrible killers. In addition, it polarizes and obscures the issue of the war in Iraq. While Iraq is a strategic location, and we have done something about Hussein's killings there by deposing him, the true debate on the issue should be "could/can we get more bang for our buck by acting in another region instead", and "has this increased or decreased the global tide of terrorism in the world, and by how much", not "Hussein was Hitler II", and "WMD's were/weren't the justification for war".

Re:Korea

[kmhebert]

actually, I think it's the minority, don't forget that they're completly brainwashed to love their leader.

This does, sadly, have a lot of truth to it. Nick Kristof of the NY Times had a review of Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty by Bradley K. Martin, detailing how North Koreans bribe their officials in order to get jobs in Siberian labor camps because even that is better than what they have going on in their own country. Still, in a closed society like North Korea's, a lot of people really don't know of anything better than the misery they live in. Sad but unfortunately largely true.

Re:Korea

[circusboy]

Oil prices?

Down?

you weren't around for the tosco fiasco a few years ago? [tosco refinery, big fire, near oakland] there was a refinery fire, and despite the fact that only a small percentage of the local gasoline stemmed from that refinery, prices went up. A lot. when it was noted that people still payed for the gas, the prices stayed up. [until somebody was finally sued for gouging...]

When prices go up, if the market can bear it, they don't go back down again. unless forced.

c'mon that's the capitalist way.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

and you don't think other countries, who can no longer get a reliable supply from the middle east won't turn to these other sources, meaning there is less to go around everyone, thus forcing the prices up?

Re:Korea

[cyfer2000]

I think the Bush government knew exactly that Saddam had NO WMD, then made decision to invade.

Re:Korea

[circusboy]

and the amazing part is that karl rove, having admitted that, was just promoted...

don't you just love the fact that this happens, people see it happen, and no one notices.

but that's okay, condi rice will save us from those evildoe....................

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call NK a first world country, more a second. Your paranoia is matched only by their though. They have beach defenses to stop US invasion from the sea for example.

The ones with something to worry about are South Korea, but then NK have the conventional weapons to flatten Soeul anyway, without introducing nukes.

Re:Korea

[N3wsByt3]

I understand the sentiment, and no one is claiming it isn't awful, but the poster was right in correcting the parent poster, because he was factual wrong.

Sentiments and emotions are no excuse to distort the truth or posting something as a fact when it isn't.

Re:Korea

[Maudib]

I would say that 2million people dead and a whole country malnourished as a result of the absurd policies of a totaliterian regime count as genocide.

With regards to majority support for the war, yes the democrats did support it. Based on the intel that was manufactured and contorted by the CIA and State Department at the direction of the Bush administration. Even if the democrats could see through the BS, Bush had the country wopped up into such a state (Saddam supports terrorism, WMDs, Etc) that no one could decent without loosing all sorts of political support.

W/r/t war for Oil, you miss the point. Bush fought a war for oil, but not on behalf of the consumer. The war drove up oil prices, leading to higher profits for his friends in oil. Oil is now dominated by the U.S. oil industry who is of course great friends of Bush. They have more oil, and higher prices. So yeah, it was a war for oil, paid with American blood, on behalf of the oil industry, to everyone elses detriment.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting that all of those except for the ottomans and the hutu-tutsi were socialists or communists.

Re:Korea

[nutshell42]

You forgot the US. The bombing campaigns of WWII and Vietnam/Cambodia almost certainly killed more than 2 million people so it would be #4 on the list.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

22% of US oil is imported from the Persian Gulf as of 2003 and there are more contries over there than just Iraq. It's still substantial because most people will bitch over a lot less than 22% when it comes to gas prices. Not to say the effect could be 22%, of course it would be less.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

WWII???

Yeah, The United States had no business getting involved in that conflict and the world would be a better place had they not.

You tell 'em.

Seriously, your statement would have had 17 times the validity if you had just talked about SE Asia, but using WWII just shows that you're just another neuvo-hip America hater jumping on the "US SUCKS" bandwagon because "Bush is the sux0r" and bashing America at anytime shows how compassionate and awake you are to the world around you when in fact you're a moron.

Add something intelligent or STFU.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Crude oil is at $47 a barrel, up from $35. That is why gas prices are up. Your conspiracy theories are just plain stupid. The fact is the world has reached a point where suppliers can't keep up with demand, so prices are going to continue to rise.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

note that more than one Israeli agrees that the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel is shameful

Yet you fail to mention how the Palestinians are/were waging a dirty war by killing civilians with homicide bombers. The attitude of both Arabs and Palestinians that the region Israel is on historicaly belongs to them and them alone which nothing could be further from the truth. Historicaly the Jews have been there for thousands of years and have faced nothing but hatered and anti-semitism from the Arab world at large. The palestinians took their name from the region and are basicaly squatters on a land they should have never been given in the first place and were only given it because it was a compamise the UN made when it recognised Israel (even then the surrounding countries tried to destry Israel). Baring the fact that the Palestinians do deserve a country of their own they need to display the maturity that they deserve one and that means leaving Israel alone. So if they were left alone by the surrounding Arab countries that would end your argument that they are the most destablizing force in that region. In fact ten years ago when Palestinians worked with Israel they were better off untill Arafat had a tizzy about Jerusalem. I find it deplorable that people are so quick to blame Israel for what the surronding nations are doing to stir up trouble. It shows how gullable people are in believing all the propaganda that is being spewed out.

Other than that. I agree with most of the rest of what you had to say. And I also had to post anonymously to protect myself from the left wingers too.

Re:Korea

[John Newman]

Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over. The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market

Transport costs are less then 5% of the cost of a barrel of oil at current prices. In fact, this is why crude prices are high here when supply is disrputed in the ME. Oil is a global market. Disruptions in supply to one area mean higher prices for everyone. That's a good thing; otherwise we'd be really be paying through the nose after all the strikes in Venezuela.

But there is surely a "terror premium" in today's crude prices; most folks estimate it at $5-10. OTOH, you could call it a "no spare capacity" premium just as accurately. Global pries are high, and will likely remain high, because demand is growing faster than supply. Small disruptions thus have a disproportionate effect on prices.

But that's not why gas prices are high here in the US. That has much more to do with lack of refinery capacity and price-fixing. Did you notice how gas prices rose dramatically last spring, when crude prices were stable; and actually fell a bit in the fall (run-up to the election) when crude prices were spiking? There's a disconnect because relatively little of the pump price is actually the cost of crude. Other factors are much more important.

Re:Korea

[servognome]

Should be fair enough for all nations. Just because a country is branded "an outpost of tyranny" doesn't mean it does not have the right to defend itself.
Well the US, Russia, France, India, etc. have alot to lose in terms of trade, wealth, which prevents them from using nuclear weapons. Now do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody with nothing to lose? Mutally assured distruction prevents nuclear war, only so long as both sides care that they don't want to be destroyed. There are groups of zealots all over the world who don't care if they live or die, so long as "evil" is destroyed. That is where the danger lies in nuclear proliferation.
The US is not the only target for N. Korea. Japan, Guam, S. Korea would be the most likely targets, since N. Korea I don't think has demonstrated a long range missle capable of hitting the US (though they have developed one that can hit Japan) . I'm sure if you lived in either of those countries, you would really appreciate nobody caring about N. Korea getting nuclear weapons.
to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people
And used them to end a war quickly to save lives. The firebombing of Tokyo and battle of Okinawa each killed about the same number people as each atomic bomb.

Re:Korea

[nutshell42]

It was about *civilian deaths*. The US killed probably close to 1 million *civilians* in bombings dropped over civilian targets.

Nowhere did I say something about whether that war was justified (from the Allied perspective) or whether the US should have stayed at home (yes and no) but most casualties from the bombing campaign occured in 1945 when victory was certain, the military usefulness of the bombings is highly debatable and the Allies didn't even try to use their bomber fleet to stop the Holocaust even though they had proof of it since mid 1944.

Why does the fact that Hitler was perhaps more evil than any human before or after mean that the means employed by his enemies have to be just? If I can't say the US did questionable things can't I say it about the USSR either?

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ on a rubber crutch...this muttonhead's drivel got modded to insightful, when it's evident the author is about as dumb as a sack of hair.

OK time for instant good slashdot karma whoring....

Bush sucks! Bad US Bad US! Nuke 'em Nuke 'em Rah Rah Rah. Saddam Hussein/Kim Jung-Il/insert_dictator_of_choice_here is a god! Hillary Clinton is sexier than Britney!

Well that should do it...

Ready to be modded up now...

It's simple. NK signed a non-proliferation treaty in order to get nuclear technology for power production. They only wanted breeder reactors which could be used (and would be used) to enrich fissionables for a weapons program. This wasn't allowed so they broke the treaty and moved ahead with the weapons program in violation of said treaty. All this so their little psycho freak of a leader could pretend his little third world mud puddle is some player on the world stage.

Re:Korea

[nutshell42]

Nowhere did I say something about whether that war was justified (from the Allied perspective) or whether the US should have stayed at home (yes and no)

Hmm, I should probably clarify that before the next patriot is trolling along. The yes and no are *two* answers to the *two* questions - the first whether it was justified the second whether the US should have stayed at home. But I also want to add that the US *did* stay at home while France and the Commonwealth fought the 3rd Reich until the last possible moment (i.e. when they were attacked themselves and even then did Germany declare war on the US and not vice versa). FDR had to fight for every little bit of help he gave to the Allies before that and Churchill had a reason to say that the US will always do the right thing after it's exhausted the alternatives.

Re:Korea

[Carewolf]

And Hitler, and Saddam, and....

Even Stalin was hardly communist at heart.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh Israelis are the squatters...the land of "Israel" didn't even exist until after World War 2 at which time, and with United States munitions and financial support from wealthy US and European Jews, the Jewish RELIGION took over land that could equally be claimed by 3 distinct peoples, and just happened to contain the most holy city for the three most powerful religons in civilization. Most of the Jewish people in Israel now are actually descended from stock from the Caucasus Mountains, who have no more "hereditary" right to that land than anyone other than Native American Indians do to _any_ land in North America. The naked aggression against Palestinians was initiated by the current inhabitants of Israel, not based on Palenstinian agression. They were moved off the land they had lived on for generations at gunpoint, slaughtered man, woman and child when they refused. The cycle is perpetuated by Israel's refusal to acknowledge them as equals and give them equal protection under the nation-state's laws. For instance, it is a capital crime to kill an Israeli, but not even a misdemanor to kill a Palestinian child... read Gordon Levy and Israel Shamir (both Jews) for dissenting voices against the Israeli propaganda machine.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over

What, it takes a supertanker's worth of oil to fuel a supertanker carrying oil? Come on.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I think 9/11 DELAYED the invasion of Iraq by making Bush have to focus on the Taliban for a year first instead.

Re:Korea

[Severious]

"...first-world nation with a massive army and nuclear weapons?"

North Korea
1. Nuclear Weapons, Apparently
2. Massive Admy, Definitely
3. First-World Nation... Ummmm no


Starvation, little shanty huts, intermittent power, poor sanitation, these things do not make a first world nation. Now if all it takes is a couple nuke regardless of the state of the rest of society then ok.

Re:Korea

[Snaller]

You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?

No, that would be in 1790 wasn't it?

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting in the late 1990's, North Korea has been trying to obtain nukes. Back then President Clinton was working with them. North Korea agreed to 'freeze' its program at the time, but the agreement was a sham. In addition, there were numerous conferences with its ally, the Chinese People's Rupublic. Kim Song Oh, the sister of Kim Jong Il, went to see the Chinese military high command in Sczenzen Province at that time and was promised an
army group of Chinese regulars convenionently 'based' in the province neighboring North Korea. An army group in China is usually upwards of three hundred thousand men. In addition, the population of North Korea at the time took a sudden and unexplained jump of about six million people. I wonder just who these 'new citizens' were. North Korea was also promised all the ammunition and supplies that it would need to fight the Americans under Clinton at the time should the 'need arise'.
The deal was done and the false promises from North Korea were accepted on face value at least publicly, as I refuse to believe that Bill Clinton the Rhodes Scholar and political and foreign policy expert could have been totally taken in by this bunch of hoodlums in popinjay uniforms led by a nut in a pompadour wig. What Bill did was basically put the problem off to another day. I'll bet he did, however, make arrangements for our garrison there to scram really fast once those 8 million troops got moving south.
My guess now is that North Korea is laying the groundwork for a sales campaign to sell their nukes to the highest bidder. The generals behind their small figurehead (Kim) will want to get some foreign exchange for all the hard work of their slaves and scientists (or both). They probably really do not want to see their country devastated. They did that and Kim Jong Il's new Lincoln limo might get scratched. The generals know that Bush really is impotent as Bob Dole as far as being able to oppose an invasion at this time of South Korea. It could all be over in less than a week if nukes were used. A secret warning by Red China to Bush would leave us unable to help the South Koreans if the upshot was Chinese missiles raining on the United States if we did openly help. This would also be an excellent time for the Chinese to retake Taiwan by force.
In a very short time, we could look like Austro-Hungary did when it was beaten by Serbia in the opening battles of World War One---total loss of respect in the world neighborhood. We then would have no choice but to accept third rate power status or go to total war. When the number comes up, we may have less than a day to decide. I have little faith in the present United States administration, as it looks to be increasingly out of touch with reality. Only Bush loyalists and major contributers are going to have any real influence in this administration, a scene right out of the fairy tale about the Emperor having no clothes. Nobody is going to tell the President what he does not want to hear!.....and expect to keep their job. Hello fairy tale world at the top. GOD help us all!

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam=6x10^5

Ummm.. 500,000 of that is credited to a "needless war". If you want to make judgements about needless war, you should put Bush somewhere on the list as well.

Bush = 1.7x10^4

Re:Korea

[sql*kitten]

Yes.

Kids these days!

You'd think that the Korean War never happened... go read some history. North Korea has been butting heads with the West in general and the US in particular for upwards of half a century. Basically the Chinese backed factions in the North to throw a revolution, the US responded to a request for help from the South, there was a lot of shooting, and since then the border between North and South has been the most heavily militarized in the world.

Re:Korea

[maggern]

Why? Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over.

Figured that out for yourself, eh? Cause it's plain out dead wrong.

Re:Korea

[Principal Skinner]

We don't seem to be invading Pakistan.

We don't seem to be invading North Korea, either. And, to be blunt, what has the DPRK done for us lately? Pakistan under Musharraf is an ally, and that's no small feat in a country where the main foreign policy objective of the man in the street is to assert a religious claim over land that was given to India at the time Pakistan was created.

Where bin Laden is.

At least part of Pakistan wants to get bin Laden. They just don't have a lot of control over that northern region, and not even the greatest control over their own Army officers, so it's tough going.

Which sold the weapons tech.

The government of Pakistan wasn't the one doing the selling, and it doesn't look like a pattern that is likely to continue. Does it actually make any kind of sense to invade them?

Re:Korea

[gtkuhn]

Has everyone forgotten what the terms "first-world" and "third-world" and the seldom used "second-world" really refer to?

The terms are leftovers from the cold war.

First-World countries are capitalist.
Second-World countries are communist.
Third-World countries are all other.

So, if the terms still have any meaning, NK is definitely Second-World.

Re:Korea

[calstraycat]

Agreed. They are more of a second world nation. I got a little carried way...I have that tendency.

South Korea is a one of our major allies as is Japan. North Korea hates both of those countries. I have many Japanese friends and they are terrified of a North Korea with nukes.

Re:Korea

[calstraycat]

I agree. More like a second world nation, but not a third world nation. I got carried away...

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

The US could offer to send them some more nukes...

Re:Korea

[BlueStraggler]

I see a lot of pokes at the Bush administration, and how it was using WMD as an excuse to get "OIL". Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?

Why would you think that global power politics has anything to do with consumer prices in the midwest?

U.S. oil interests have nothing to do with what Joe Consumer pays for gas, but with (a) whose currency is used to purchase bulk crude, (b) whose ass countries have to kiss to get a hold of sufficient quantities of that currency, (c) which corporations control the international trade in oil, and (d) ensuring that the oil producers understand who's the boss as we pass the world oil production peak.

None of that changes one whit if you're paying $2 or even $20 a gallon in Kansas.

Re:Korea

[Jim_Callahan]

Haven't Washington and N. Vietnam been about as hostile as humanly possible since, oh, I dunno, we spent half a decade shooting at each other back in the day?

Re:Korea

[grozzie2]

The real reason for the high oil price, is the drop in the us dollar over the last couple of years. Oil has retained it's value, the greenback has not. It's actually an artificial increase, that affects only the usa, and any country using a currency that's in some way tied to the greenback.

Contrary to what america wants you to believe, the greenback is NOT the defacto standard for world pricing anymore, the Euro is. Put a couple of charts side by side, one the price of oil (in us dollars), the other the exchange rate between the us dollar and the Euro. They will look surprisingly similar. Compare that to a chart of oil vs the Euro, and you'll see a relatively stable pricing environment, with some increases that basically are accounted for by the reduced world supply thanks to a war in iraq, and the uncertainty that brings to the market.

The greenback will not regain it's former strength till americans start running a balanced budet. For those that dont understand the concept, it means spending only what you take in, no charge cards allowed, and no negative balances carried forward. Since this is a concept that nobody in the usa even comes close to comprehending (how many of you have credit cards maxed out today?), it's never gonna happen. The american economy is imploding under an unmanageable debt load, and the only way to stop it, is for every american to actually pay off thier credit cards, and the government to run a balanced budget. Not gonna happen in our lifetime.

Re:Korea

[randallpowell]

I doubt they did it during Shrub's 1st term. I'd say they started late in Clinton's 2nd term and just now blaming it on the Axis of Evil© comment in 2001.

Re:Korea

[cheekyboy]

no oil is up because EVERYONE NEEDS IT.

For fuel, fertilizer, plastics, everything.

Now with china expanding buying more.

Ever heard of MORE DEMAND = HIGHER PRICE? The supply of OIL cannot go up because there are only SO MANY refinaries, and only so many oil tankers, and pipelines, you cant just say, ok pump another 50m barrels a day, where? how? its like your garden house on full, you cant pump it FASTER!!!!

It takes years and years to build everything.

The last 120 years of human expansion would have not been possible without oil. face it, if oil runs out, 90% of people are DOOMED.

Dont say im full of shit, the pentagon has done papers on it and how oil/resource wars will happen with in the next 25 years, especially ifyou start seeing mass weather changes, and large population starvation/movements, borders will be ignored by the populace and chaos will happen and armies will shoot.

Re:Korea

[cheekyboy]

on a tax/currency ratio to europe, US people pay a lot less per litre than in europe in relation to wages and taxes and the price of bread and milk.

So get over it, you could pay 2x more and still not meet what EU people pay.

Its so funny how americans have much larger salaries in dollar terms and much lower oil prices and yet still complain and still have 10 credit cards of 100k. What the hell are americans buying? no wonder the GDP is 11trillion. $40k and 80% spent on toys? Start paying $4/GL and see how you lile it, if you cant handle it then how the hell can EU/UK ? Maybe thats how EU/UK will survive better when oil DOES rise too high , it will just lower taxes so much that it will keep the price static, but US has no room to move but up since its taxes are soo low!

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you forgotten the mass genocide Saddam has commit, even to his own people? If you look at history, I think this would be topped only by Hitler.

Not even close. You would have to have a very limited knowledge of history to come to that conclusion. Every heard of Pol Pot? That's a example from recent history.

Not only that, but the US/UK helped train the Khmer Rouge (Pol Pot's crew) in Thailand to retake Cambodia from the Vietnamese.

Re:Korea

[ta_relax]

" Ottoman Empire(Armenian Genocide)=2x10^6

As you can see, Hitler's not even close to first, and Saddam is way down at the bottom. Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda. "

I agree! There was no so called Armenian genocide. First the number is inflated, second the number of Turks killed during the period is on par with the Armenians. Genocide is a serious word. Unfortunately, Armenians are trying to use it as a propaganda for political gain (to fuel nationalism in a poor country and bring together a large abroad diaspora). When people use historical tragedies for small political gain, there is nothing noble about it, and I hate it.

We should all use history to learn something from it and both sides have a lot to learn. Yet such propaganda results in nothing but continueing hatred..

Re:Korea

[Xyrus]

All right everyone! Place your bets! Who do you think the US will invade next?

1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. CowboyNeal's house

Diplomacy? Too many syllables for Bush.

Anyway, I'm betting Iran. After all, wouldn't it be better to destabalize the whole region at once?

Plus Iran has oil and pipelines. NK has little to offer in the way of spoils.

No, I'm not cynical. I'm not sarcastic either. :P

~X~

Re:Korea

[ipfwadm]

So officially, South Korea, the US, and even to a degree the UN are still at war with North Korea.

Well, no, actually the U.S. is not still officially at war with North Korea, because the U.S. was NEVER officially at war with North Korea. The last time the U.S. declared war on anyone was 1941.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed Cambodia. They killed 1.5 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Re:Korea

[ipfwadm]

oh, it takes about that long for the cheap oil to get processed through the refinery.

Not only does it take a while to get processed through the refinery (and then delivered to where you are), but it also takes a long time for the oil to get TO the refinery. Those oil prices that they quote on the evening news? Those are for delivery generally at least a month in advance. That's why they're called "futures".

Re:Korea

[Council]

I was only pointing out the factual inaccuracy.

Re:Korea

[dwillden]

The condition of Congressionally declared war and a state of war or hostilities are actually different matters. You are correct in that a Congressionally declared war did not exist, but as a matter of treaty support for South Korea we did initiate hostilities whith North Korea, and said hostilities are only in a status of Cease-fire, not peace, thus we are still at war with North Korea, not because we declared war in congress but because we went to war in honor of a treaty we had made.

Re:Korea

[Guppy06]

"Transport costs are less then 5% of the cost of a barrel of oil at current prices."

Because most oil sold isn't shipped far, because of the aforementioned transport costs. Why would we be spending exoritant transport fees from oil from the Alyeska Pipeline, or shipped from the Grand Banks? The first is domestic and the second is from a NAFTA signatory.

"Oil is a global market."

Wal-Mart is everywhere. That doesn't mean you're going to drive two states away just to shop at one, especially when there's one just down the street.

Re:Korea

[Guppy06]

And just how are we to support operations in Afghanistan without access to Pakistani airspace? The shuttle fleet?

Ideals make way for realpolitik when you're dealing with landlocked countries.

Re:Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the fact that it was called the National Socialist party, the Nazis were in no way socialists. Hitler was, in general, opposed to government interference with the economy.

It's worth noting that fascism is not just a synonym for authoritarianism or a dictatorship. The fascist movements were also characterized by intermingling of the affairs of big business and government. While I don't think the US is an authoritarian nation, regardless of what some people will say, I think that the current influence of businesses on politicians in both parties is very dangerous. What is good for a business is not good for everyone else if competition was subverted in the process.

Thank Goodness...

[katsiris]

Iraq was disarmed just in time!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Adrilla]

Yeah, good thing we raided big bad Iraq, while sweet lil' N. Korea was doing all of this.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, so they (North Korea) actually have weapons of mass destruction,...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Evan Meakyl]

Yes, a big thanks to the United Nations and the UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are dumb. Please do us a favor and chew off your voting fingers.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[shreevatsa]

Well that may be true, but then why didn't you just go out and say it? Why didn't you say that you had to invade Iraq so that it wouldn't have WMDs in the future... instead of the saying that you were invading it because it already had weapons of mass destruction?
The end does not always justify the means?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?

Uh, no. We invaded Iraq over North Korea because we knew we could kick Saddam's ass. If we had invaded North Korea, Kim Jong Il would have responded by lobbing a few nuclear warheads into Tokyo and/or Seoul.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we hadn't invaded, don't you think Iraq would have been another N. Korea (maybe even worse)? The only thing worse than commies with their fingers on the button are religious fanatics with their fingers on the button (insert GWB joke here).

Re:Thank Goodness...

[MartinG]

And what exactly is "another North Korea"?

We all know where Iraq got by not having any serious weapons, by allowing inspectors in, and generally doing what the west told them. That's right, they got illegally invaded and the place turned to chaos.

If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, laugh it up, all the dead soldiers appreciate it.

I'm sure they appreciated dying for BushCo and his friends. Bush is a war criminal and should by shot by a firing squad in true military fashion.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[SamBeckett]

Another North Korea: (Let's ignore the human rights issues at the moment) A country that has the ability to obliterate one of it's neighbors and uses that fact for negotiations.

As I already said, I don't know all of the reasons Bush and Co invaded Iraq

Re:Thank Goodness...

[katsiris]

No they don't, they can't hear me. They're dead.

So on a priority basis for you, it's better to invade the country that *might* be a threat in the future rather than a country that *is* a threat in the present?

PS, the position of preventative control was about disarmament not development. Anyone who tells you otherwise is revising history in a sad attempt to justify those lives that were uselessly lost which you claim to hold so dear.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[MartinG]

A country that has the ability to obliterate one of it's neighbors and uses that fact for negotiations.

Sounds more like the US to me. Except that for the US the neighborhood it "negotiates" with extends across the world.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[MooseByte]

"You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"

We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program? Wow, by your logic that sure is a LONG list of countries that need invading ASAP. And STILL completely ignores the countries that now have or are very close to REAL WMD, not phantoms painted on an oil-rich country.

And do you know why those countries accelerated (pun?) their efforts? They realized that America does NOT go after countries that have the Bomb. They also realize that America can't open a new war front. We're too tied down in a country that posed NO immediate threat to us, so the guys with the real nuke programs get to pursue them at will. We're currently toothless, and they know it.

Anyway, laugh it up, all the dead soldiers appreciate it.

Irony - you should look it up sometime.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Adrilla]

I don't think Bush is stupid (I won't say he's the smartest president). But his priorities are out of whack. We attack a relatively weak Iraq to draw attention away from the fact that we can't capture Bin Laden, and while on this diversionary mission, not only does much more dangerous N. Korea get nuclear capabilities; next door neighbor Iran gets them too. So he's not a stupid person, but he is a stupid president. (oh! did I mention his Iraq exit strategy? NO? Well maybe that's because he didn't have one going in and still doesn't)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they appreciated dying for BushCo and his friends. Bush is a war criminal and should by shot by a firing squad in true military fashion.

Inhumane, I'd suggest a bullet in the back of the head

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't pretend to know all of the administrators motives for invading Iraq, but I assure you, my original post was one of them.

OMFG! We invaded Iraq bacause of a post you made on Slashdot! I didn't realize that the administration even read Slashdot!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

WMD is ONE reason that Saddam was taken out, NOT the only one. Even impeached former President Bill Clinton admitted that Saddam had WMDs, and Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds.

Stop posting FUD and lies on Slashdot.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

His Iraq exit strategy is the same as the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford Vietnam exit strategy; hanging to the bottoms of the last helicopters.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Detritus]

The government of Iraq failed to meet the terms of the cease fire and applicable UN resolutions. Bad idea.

They wouldn't have been in this situation if not for their decision to invade Kuwait.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[sxpert]

But his priorities are out of whack

it depends, you don't know his priorities.
For all I know he is more interested in grabbing all the oil he can from irak, using the weapons of mass destruction as a pretext

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post has been reported to the appropriate authorities. For your sake, you had best hope that AC actually means AC on Slashdot.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

For all its other faults, Saddam's government was about the only government in the middle east that was not run by "religious fanatics".

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We all know where Iraq got by not having any serious weapons, by allowing inspectors in, and generally doing what the west told them"

The key word here is "generally". Did you mean to contradict your point or are you just a moron?

Sadam continually thumbed his nose at the UN.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[katsiris]

Damn it, I replied to the wrong post! Sorry, it was all that pressure that made me crack.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Mr. Slippery]

You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?

Hussein's Iraq was in no position to do anything but dream of becoming another North Korea. As the complete failure of the search for WMDs shows, the sanctions worked perfectly adequately to keep them from developing nukes.

Meanwhile, the invasion demonstrated to the world that the U.S. will not be restrained by law, ethics, or common sense; so if we don't like your nation, the only way you might be secure against U.S. invasion is to develop WMDs.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[deanj]

Uh....so your solution to what North Korea was doing would be what, exactly?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[katsiris]

No they don't, they can't hear me. They're dead.

So on a priority basis for you, it's better to invade the country that *might* be a threat in the future rather than a country that *is* a threat in the present?

PS, the position of preventative control was about disarmament not development. Anyone who tells you otherwise is revising history in a sad attempt to justify those lives that were uselessly lost which you claim to hold so dear.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[lurwas]

"Wow, by your logic that sure is a LONG list of countries that need invading ASAP."

I bet George W. Bush's lists of countries to invade are longer than his!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.

It's a sad day when Kim's rhetoric actually makes sense, although I bet we could take over then whole country with a couple of Krogers.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[N3WBI3]

Dont forget that China would have gotten involved, and maybe Russia (on whos side I dont know)... If not in a military role they would have gotten politically and economically involved..

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Otter]

I agree that it won't say much for Bush if two Axis of Evil members get nukes while we were busy with the third. (Although it would be nice if the people who complain about inaction towards North Korea would explain what they would have proposed be done -- you understand why an Iraq-style attack on them is out of the question, right?)

But as long as we're talking about stupid presidents, how about Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter giving them the freaking reactors?

As far the "We need more North Koreas!" contingent here is concerned, by the way -- if you think a totalitarian hellhole with rampant starvation and the threat of incineration of South Korea is a net win as long as they're somehow sticking it to the US -- well, you're entitled to your view but I'm entitled to find it loathsome.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be ignorant but who keeps tabs on what the USA is building? and wtf does it have to do with Bush if they do have weapons like this. he has em....

America and its idiot leader is going to be responsible for the destruction of the world.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the UN is based on this fact. That's why the US can (and does) veto any negotiation it doesn't agree with.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The government of Iraq failed to meet the terms of the cease fire and applicable UN resolutions. Bad idea.

Like that made any difference.

They wouldn't have been in this situation if not for their decision to invade Kuwait.

In Saddam's defense, he cleared the invasion with Bush41 to prevent US anger, and he does have a valid claim on Kuwait, insofar as it's only been 50 or so years since Kuwait was part of Iraq.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't have been in this situation if not for their decision to invade Kuwait.

Which they made based on U.S. assurances it was okay to do just that...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

the end of WWII?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[-brazil-]

> WMD is ONE reason that Saddam was taken out, NOT the only one.

It was the one exclusively touted during the warmongering. Without the WMD lie, with "we wanna depose a dictator", Bush couldn't have sold this war to the public without scare tactics. Too obvious the question "why depose *this* dictator? Why not first drop our active support for some others?"

> Even impeached former President Bill Clinton admitted that Saddam had WMDs, and Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds.

Yup, those were to one given to him by Rumsfeld when he was still the USA's buddy.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[caswelmo]

Being a religious fanatic doesn't necessarily make you evil. Unless, of course, you include that in the definition of fanatic.

Likewise, not being a religious fanatic doesn't mean you're not evil.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[mi]

Besides being a perfectly valid targets in their own, Iraq from one side and Afghanistan from the other are both good places to squeeze Iran, an aspiring (and lying) nuclear power.

True, North Korea should've been crushed or simply allowed to collapse 10 years ago, but South Korea -- our ally over there -- prefers its "sunshine" (a.k.a. "give peace a chance") policy...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[operagost]

I'm sure you all would have voted for the invasion on North Korea ... before you voted against it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

REAL WMD

You're not seeing the big picture.

The Iraq war wasn't just for Iraq. It was for Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Iran is an emerging nuclear power, and the US now has forces occupying the countries directly surrounding Iran. The Muslims can scream holy war all they want, but there aren't many in the area who can back Iran. Russis is the closest, and they're still seriously nurfed. The far future is US vs China + Russia. The US doesn't need oil rich Middle East as a thorn in its side for the big face-off. Bin Laden showed that the oil money will fly back in our face, which is why they're being dealt with now.

We're currently toothless, and they know it.

Then why is there still a South Korea? North Korea is just posturing. They have some toys, but can't do much with them, yet. Also, China is trying to put on a good face while they come to power, so they'll help supress NK for the time being. NK is a loose cannon, they'll be put down eventually.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[intnsred]

But as long as we're talking about stupid presidents, how about Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter giving them the freaking reactors?

The arrangement worked out by Clinton, using Carter as the go-between, was to build light water reactors in exchange for the DPRK doing away with their heavy water reactors. It was a good deal.

Light water reactors (the kind the Russians are building in Iran, BTW) use fuel that is much, much harder to enrich into weapons-grade material, and they are easier for inspectors to monitor.

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ynohoo]

I wish China would sort this mess out. They have already annexed Tibet, want to annex Taiwan, why the hell don't they sort out this festering sore on their northern border?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[IncarnadineConor]

Stupid, those cities aren't in America, that can't possibly be why we didn't invade.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[intnsred]

but South Korea -- our ally over there -- prefers its "sunshine" (a.k.a. "give peace a chance") policy...

Yeah, how dare those Koreans have a say in how their own country is run and how they interact with their fellow countrymen -- the nerve of them!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

you understand why an Iraq-style attack on them is out of the question, right?

Because we'd actually have to justify it to the American people and explain to them why the sacrifice was required? Make no mistake: Either the United States or South Korea could defeat the North in a military confrontation. The price (tens of thousands of troops, the likely destruction of Seoul, possible strikes against Japan) is just too high to be paid.

As scary as that SOB (Kim Jong il) is I'm more worried about Iran in the grand scheme of things. North Korea at least (by and large) still behaves as a nation-state. Kim Jong knows that if he attacks Seoul, Tokyo or Honolulu we can turn Pyongyang into a glass parking lot. He might rattle his saber but that's as far as it's likely to go. The same limitation might not exist in the minds of Islamic Jihadists who think that martyring themselves against the "Great Satan" gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.

We can only hope and pray that the reformist movement in Iran is the real deal. I don't want to see Tel Aviv or Washington nuked anytime soon.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[operagost]

Funny how that kind of logic doesn't apply in regards to Israel. The entire regions known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip were promised to it when Jordan was created from the Palestinian Mandate, and then the West reneged. When Israel took it back in 1967 it was an illegal action. Let's just ignore the fact that the 1948 borders weren't even defensible and the 1967 war was started by Arab nations without provocation.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is there still a South Korea? North Korea is just posturing.

By that logic, the fact that there is still an Israel and a Kuwait says that Iraq was "just posturing". Your standards are double no matter how you draw it, there is no reasonable estimation of risk that put Iraq at the top of the list. Sorry!

Also, if you think the war in Iraq has somehow put positive pressure on Iran, then why was the Iranian government so vocally supportive of the Bush doctrine, and yet equally adamant about maintaining their nuclear facilities? Obviously, because they are not threatened by Bush's foreign policy at this time. Even though we are in Iraq, next door to them, they know we're too enmired in security issues in that country to pose any direct threat to them.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, good thing we raided big bad Iraq, while sweet lil' N. Korea was doing all of this.

The technological capability of the USA to detect nuclear explosions happening anywhere on the planet, even underground, is unsurpassed. The only reason NK was singled out to begin with is because they'd been identified by the US intelligence community as preparing for nuclear testing.

But there is no evidence they've actually tested a weapon, or completed one.

So there are many possible options: North Korea is lying -- again -- to try and leverage fear of WMDs to get free money from the six nations; every nuclear detection program in the world happened to fail to detect NK's tests; or NK and the USA are covertly allied and NK developing nukes is a US goal despite public objections. (If you think it couldn't happen, check out the USA's dealings with Stalinist Russia)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha! "give peace a chance!" ?!? what about "try not to get half the country dead within the hour?" - the north have a shitload of missiles and more than 1 milion troops facing southwards...

sure, the americanski can come later and mop up, but it wouldn't quite be the same, would it?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the US is OK with a nuke-armed NK is the same reason the US is fine with a nuke-armed Pakistan (despite anti-US sentiment there).

They "check" China, which is fast on its way to becoming the second superpower.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[dfn5]

The point was we invaded the wrong country. Obviously Iraq has no weapons, and N.K. does.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

Iraq mishandled the situation - they had these choices

1) Keep the WMD, tell the UN to fuck off and fight an apocalyptic non conventional battle with the US/UK. The US/UK win, but level the country in the process.
2) Give up the nukes, prove it to the US/UK and have no war. Saddam stays in power. Obviously it would be pretty hard to get away with this, but it's not impossible. Kind of like it was possible to avoid the first gulf war by a rapid and very public retreat from Kuwait, something James Baker described as a "nightmare scenario".

Neither of these were very appealing, so Saddam fiddled around and got a third option.

3) Destroy some of the weapons in secret, or maybe smuggle them to Syria. Not provide complete proof to the UN, let alone the US/UK. Get invaded and deposed. Not much damage to Irag during the invasion, but guerilla war against the invaders makes up for it.

Of course, if we hadn't have attacked, a resolution extending sanctions/no fly zones would eventually have been blocked by the French, Russians or Chinese, and then all those WMD programs would have restarted. They had the scientists, the money and a supplier, A Q Khan

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan /k han.htm

And once they had nukes, they would have been able to do anything they like like North Korea got away with in the Clinton era - they would offer to give up their nuke programs in return for aid, then later we'd find that they lied and cut off aid, and then the cycle would start again.

I think the way to deal with the proliferation problem is to build a missile defense shield. You only need to be able to shoot down a dozen or so relatively low tech weapons initially, and then upgrade it to keep up with the worst case threat. You need to make it clear to the rogue states that you will definitely retaliate with lots nuclear weapons if any of theirs get through the defense shield too, presumably deterrence still works to some extent.

Of the alternatives invading countries is too risky (Iraq), and constructive engagement is just plain pointless (Iran, North Korea).

Of course, if a nuclear armed Iraq had attacked Kuwait/Saudi Arabia, it would leave you in a situation where you either do nothing or risk a nuclear war.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

No, attacking them is out of the question because they have nuclear weapons and long range missiles.
Also, the PRC doesn't like it when we use military force on the peninsula, and they happen to have nuclear weapons, long range rockets, and satilite guidance tech for them (thank Clinton for that one).

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Otter]

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.

I think you have the chronology backwards there. The Bush cutoffs took place after North Korea violated their treaty obligations. (It was because they restarted plutonium production, wasn't it?)

But, you're right -- the current nukes (if they exist, which I'd doubt) wouldn't have been made with the light water reactors.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

In Saddam's defense, he cleared the invasion with Bush41 to prevent US anger

Is there any proof of that besides what came from the Iraqi regime?

he does have a valid claim on Kuwait, insofar as it's only been 50 or so years since Kuwait was part of Iraq.

Does that mean that India has a valid claim on Pakistan? Does that mean that Mexico has a valid claim on the southwest US? Does that mean that Finland has a valid claim on parts of Russia? Does that mean that Spain has valid claims on the Philippines, Guam, Cuba and Puerto Rico? Does the UK have a claim on the original 13 American states?

Losing territory in a war sucks but you lose your right to complain if you wait generations to do anything about it -- by which time it has become assimilated into the culture of whichever nation acquired it/was created from it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[N3WBI3]

Because they share a political ideology. If N Korea was religious, or democratic they would have 'fixed' this years ago.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[EpsCylonB]

I agree that it won't say much for Bush if two Axis of Evil members get nukes while we were busy with the third.

There are more than three axis of evil countries...

N. Korea
Iran
Syria
Cuba

Re:Thank Goodness...

[litecode]

Funny, Saddam said he had weapons too. He even thought he had weapons. Obviously, a few nukes here and there can be transported easily. I think it's rather ignorant to jump the gun in these situations and say that they do or do not have weapons. Unannounced inspections are the only thing that will show real proof.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we have treaty obligations to the nations those cities happen to be in. Ever hear of SEATO?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

No, attacking them is out of the question because they have nuclear weapons and long range missiles.

Maybe and maybe. And it's a big assumption to assume that even if they have nukes that they can build them small enough to put them on missiles. Do you think Fat Man or Little Boy could have been deployed on cruise or ballistic missiles?

Also, the PRC doesn't like it when we use military force on the peninsula, and they happen to have nuclear weapons, long range rockets, and satilite guidance tech for them (thank Clinton for that one).

This is not 1950. The PRC would demand (and get) concessions on a number of fronts (start with trade and go all the way to Taiwan policy) to stay out of a US/SK vs NK war but they wouldn't risk the relationship with their biggest trading partner to save that cesspool if it came down to it.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that we march to Pyongyang (I've already stated that deterrence still works and Iran is the bigger threat) just stating the facts.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[hkmwbz]

They were right, you know. Blix and his weapons inspectors. Saddam had killed off his WMD programs. He didn't have any WMDs, and didn't plan on having any either.

Even the CIA told Dubya that. But nooooo.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sweet lil' N. Korea" had nukes before we went into Iraq, they have only just acknowledged it now. That was the problem. At least with Iraq we don't have to worry about them developing anymore. You can thank all the BS appeasement talks in the 90s (a la President Carter) for allowing this situation to develope.

Now we are forced to only talk for fear that they will use the nukes, and hope our own nukes and risk of invasion is a good enough deterrent (as it was in the Cold War). At least with Iran we still have a chance to keep them from finishing the work. We can't make the same mistake twice.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee dummy, I guess the racist wackos in the Bush regime would have just torn up all their war plans for the invasion of Iraq they had drawn up before their dimwitted little puppet Bush was elected if only Saddam Hussein had just 'come clean.'

Please, it's just embarrassing to have to read your garbage.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the Chinese have any love for the North Koreans? No. They didn't during the Korean war, and relations have only gotten significantly worse following that.

They share a boarder, and North Korea is, as they say, bat-shit insane. The last thing China wants is for those crazy bastards to have nuclear weapons and long range missles. They are one Siberia/Pacific Ocean too close. Further more, China knows that their pull with the North Koreans is limited as their one of the few countries that can't give the North Koreans anything that they want. Even Japan and South Korea trying to buy their way out of having to start up their own nuclear weapons programs is falling on deaf ears. (Which would produce weapons VERY quickly, and in Japan's case very large numbers.)

What you don't get is the nuclear weapons aren't for us. The North Koreans know for a fact that any kinds of war is a loser for them. Nukes or no, they know they come out on the bad side. All they've ever really had is the ability to destroy Seoul before we can do anything about it. With a nuclear weapon they can add another city to the list, and the one they want to add is Tokoyo, until Bejing becomes more important to US interests. Their aim isn't and never was to win any conflict, but to inflict a peace no one can afford to life with.

In a world where Bush behaved reasonably, the US probably would have seen more economic growth. Asia would have been able to forego increased militarization for economic gains in a more stable market.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Procrastin8er]

Giving North Korea any assistance was, IMHO, a big mistake. Whatever nuclear technology we gave them put them that much more ahead of where they would be without any assistance.

We should have been holding the hard line from the beginning.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[owlclownish]

If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. Let's start with American foreign policy. I think that we can both agree that there is legitimate and agreeable American foreign policy that would happen under most any administration, and illegitimate or unagreeable foreign policy that is most likely to occur under administrations such as that which we have now.

I would submit to you that an active and aggressive foreign policy in terms of nuclear proliferation as related to the DPRK fits into the first category, while an invasion and occupation of Iraq fits into the second. Where Iran fits is debatable, I think.

The problem with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is not only its failure, but also the delegitimizing effect it's had on all American foreign policy. We can no longer threaten the DPRK without some -- many? -- standing up and cheering for Kim Jong-Il. What a situation the Bush Administration has placed us in that people actually seriously say "we could do with a few more North Koreas."

I don't think that you should ever seriously utter those words. Has the DPRK stood up to the American behemoth? Sure. But why has it done so? Because it's a crazed, dictorial regime fueled by a destructive personality cult that punishes dissenters by placing them in concentration camps and performing outrageous medical experiments on prisoners in said camps.

You want dystopia? Look no further than the good 'ole DPRK. You want to find a country that the United States should legitimately engage, you want a war that the United States should legitimately seek, you want a regime that should be legitimately changed by American power? Look no further than the DPRK.

Now, let's be clear. Nuclear weapons work. Mutually assured destruction, while MAD, works. Or I should say, has worked. It worked great with the Soviet Union, with Britain and France, with Israel and South Africa. It can't and won't work with the DPRK, and the worry is that it won't work with Iran (I disagree with many on this point, I think it can work with Iran).

The DPRK is nuts. It's a country that thinks sea cucumbers are divine signs of the righteousness of their leadership. It's a country so poor that it sells nuclear expertise and equipment to the highest (and lowest) bidders, from Libya to Pakistan. It's a country that regularly confronts American soldiers.

Screw standing up to America in such a situation. Don't cheer them. Don't call for more DPRKs. This is a situation where America is right. Don't let Iraq color your perception of all American foreign policy. Use it as a lesson that can be applied, but must be applied selectively. Apply it, if you like, to Iran. But not to the DPRK. It doesn't apply.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

For all I know he is more interested in grabbing all the oil he can from irak, using the weapons of mass destruction as a pretext

Man he is doing a piss poor job of it, since Iraq owns its own oil and we aren't benefiting from it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[love2hateMS]

Hello??? North Korea blackmails the rest of the world. Jimmy Carter responds by giving them, what was the number again, $10 billion?

You celebrate this as victory for diplomacy.

Now North Korea is back blackmailing again, and people like you are gonna just keep bending over for them.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dr. Bent]

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation

You make it sound like the North Koreans built nuclear weapons by accident. Like, "Well shoot, we can't build light water ractors to generate power anymore...we might as well start a nuclear weapons program!"

Giving them light water reactors would have resulted in them having both light and heavy water reactors, and more technology that could be turned around and used against us. In a society as closed and tighly controlled as North Korea, it's foolish to think that we can 'inspect' anything, and that means we'd just have to take thier word for it that they're not producing nuclear weapons.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[mforbes]

Oh, we got more oil after we invaded Iraq. I see. That explains these wonderfully low gasoline costs!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LowellPorter]

The arrangement worked out by Clinton, using Carter as the go-between, was to build light water reactors in exchange for the DPRK doing away with their heavy water reactors. It was a good deal.

Light water reactors (the kind the Russians are building in Iran, BTW) use fuel that is much, much harder to enrich into weapons-grade material, and they are easier for inspectors to monitor.

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.

So you give a country nuclear materials to help reduce a country's nuclear bombmaking capabilities? Even if it is materials that are difficult to make bombs with, this is a stupid idea.

On top of that, Bush only took a hardline stance after Korea broke the agreement that was made with the Clinton administration.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Walter Wart]

Good guess. Invading Iraq has been a plank in the Republican Party Platform since his daddy was president. It's been on the PNAC's Middle East plans - which can be summed up as "There's a whole bunch of our oil over there with a bunch of Ay-rabs living on top of it" - for a long time. Phantom nukes and the gas we gave him were excuses.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

EXCELLENT! i will not use caps i will not use caps

Re:Thank Goodness...

[cayenne8]

"For all I know he is more interested in grabbing all the oil he can from irak, using the weapons of mass destruction as a pretext"

You know...I just have a hard time buying that one. I certainly have NOT seen my fuel bills going down due to the 'glut' of Iraqi oil we've grabbed so far...

In fact...prices seem to still be going up....

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Second_Infinity]

(oh! did I mention his Iraq exit strategy? NO? Well maybe that's because he didn't have one going in and still doesn't)

Really? Then what did he mean when he said we'd leave when the new established government asks us to? Sometimes you have to stay until asked to leave. Giving a timetable would just enable the insurgents to wait it out, and would give anti-Bush people someing else to complain about. What about Anti-Bush partisans claiming we have too many troops one week, then claiming we have too few the next? People that claim Bush has no exit strategy are just blowing smoke.

[/offtopic]

Back on topic, North Korea is an entirely different ballgame. Kim Jong Il will get his, in due time. Each unique nation has to be approached differently - some seem to forget that. For example, Iran will most likely be dealt with diplomatically. North Korea has already refused to negotiate their stance, so they'll be totally different than Iran. Do not forget that North Korea kicked out the UN nuclear inspectors in 2002... and the UN has done pretty much nothing since.

It will be interesting to see what the UN officially says about North Korea in the coming few days. I'll bet they attempt to send back in nuclear inspectors to verify Kim Jong Il's claims - as if they really need verification when a nation officially claims such.

How the parent post get Insightful? Mod parent post Offtopic, please.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[love2hateMS]

North Korea had nukes long before the U.S. invaded Iraq. They were sharing that technology before the U.S. invaded Iraq. Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons.

Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion.

Irony- you should look stop making it so easy for me.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Aceto3for5]

Live in the Usa? Want to be nuked? SURE! Well then YOU need a few more North Koreas

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

why the hell don't they sort out this festering sore on their northern border?

My enemy's enemy is my freind.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea has been very vocal as to why they have acquired nukes.
1). Bush named them as part of the axis of evil then invaded Iraq against UN sanction.
2). If Bush does not have to follow UN rules then neither do they.

George Bush is oh possibly 85% to blame for both North Korea's and Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves. You're ignorance is showing please zip up.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[daiakuma]

Bush's priorities are, apparently, giving his friends and cronies opportunities to steal vast sums of money from Iraq's treasury:

The BBC's File On 4 programme has learnt that out of over $20bn raised in oil revenues during US-led rule, the use of $8.8bn is unaccounted for...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/42 16853.stm

A transcript of the documentary is available.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Evan Meakyl]

I agree. My sentence sound a bit sacarstic, but I think like you :)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ubera]

Well, except for the numerous other sources of nuclear technology, such as Pakistan, Former Soviet countries and others.

The US hasn't had a monopoly on those technologies for some time, and offering safer, more scrutable technologies to supplant the dodgy equipment in situ seemed like a good plan.

Bear in mind, the DPRK has butted heads with the US before, it didn't work out well - especially for the Koreans.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[daiakuma]

...and that $8.8bn doesn't include money looted, stolen, embezzled, and ripped off from other sources, such as money that was found in Saddam's palaces, etc.

In my opinion, the Iraq war was/is the biggest armed robbery in history.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan should be able to cope with a nother bombing besides they would only get of one nuke before the rubble called N Korea became more rubble.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

It's too late to do anything about North Korea, because they have nuclear weapons and can deter a US attack. On the other hand it wasn't too late to do anything about Iraq, because they didn't yet have nuclear weapons that could deter an attack.

Actually, it's more subtle than that. Iraq certainly had chemical weapons before the first Gulf War, but was 'convinced' not to use them.

(Interview with Tariq Aziz)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/ aziz/3.html

On the other hand, even before Korea had nukes, it had enough conventional artillery pointed at Seoul to deter a US attack. Nukes don't really change things.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it needs to be explicitly stated. North Korea doesn't want nukes to use them on US forces in the event of a war. They know the results will be mixed at best, and while we'd be horrified at the casualties we've become so unacustomed to taking, it wouldn't effect the outcome of the conflict in the least unless they had large numbers of them. And when push comes to shove our firecrackers make their firecrackers look like firecrackers, and the kind you get at safeway, not the indian reservation.

Their nuclear weapons are for the major cities in Korea and Japan (and perhaps potentially China). They can't hope to win a war, so they plan to hold out long enough to inflict a peace no one can live with. Knowing this, South Korea, and Japan will have little alternative by to develope nuclear weapons of their own. Which will encourage Taiwan to start up it's banned and dismantled nuclear weapons program, and China to increase it's capacity (to defend against North Korea, South Korea, and Japan). And China has always maintained that they'd risk WWIII and invade Taiwan should they ever develope a nuclear weapon. Quite the safe little world they've made. I have to wonder if this is really the outcome they'd prayed for. Maybe a little less trusting in magic and a little more in diligent hard work.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called Mutual Destruction. He must knows that N.Korea must have or already had the capability.
On Iraq side, he most certainly was sure that Iraq unlikely had any WMD's therefore he went ahead to prevent them from obtaining any.
It's just like when you were a kid, if you look at the smaller weaker kid, you are almost certainly look over him, knowing that you can bully him anyday. It's however different with a bigger kid, or even one your size, but more clever; you wouldn't go ahead an make fun of him or fight him would you?
Point is, probability of N.Korea has WMD is higher than Iraq, that's why N.Korea was never attacked and instead the negotiation game (shit) was/is played out.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Malacon]

...and like the blind protagonist from a Greek tragedy, Bush, in an effort to change a prophecy instead fullfills it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking, or stupid?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not running out of oil any time soon, thats what you gaine, beside control of the price internationally , oh, and nobody will be seeing alternative energy sources anytime soon either.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[damian cosmas]

The failure of the search for WMD could just as easily have shown that spending a year talking about an invasion to get rid of WMD gave Mr. Hussein ample time to conceal or move whatever WMD he had. It also served the wonderful purpose of ruining all strategic surprise and allowing the Baathists time enough to plan an "insurgency."

Sanctions did nothing more than starve the people of Iraq and enrich Hussein's regime under the corrupt oil-for-food program.

The continuation of hostilities in Iraq merely demonstrated that the US has the will to finish what she started. Libya also got the message; Qadaffi abandoned his infant nuclear program

and FYI, WMD = Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction. Therefore, WMDs = Weapon(s) of Mass Destructions.

And FWIW, the only way to be secure against invasion by ANYONE is to develop WMD (cf. Israel, who is unlikely concerned that the US might invade).

Re:Thank Goodness...

[hostyle]

US companies having control of more of the worlds oil != cheap oil products for anyone. Bush is in it for the big companies, to make them more money, and not for the little guy.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Bush could really learn a lot from the UN. 8.8 billion dollars is chump-change compared to the vast wealth stolen via the "oil for food" program prior to the invasion.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[hostyle]

Weird. I can only count one.

USA

Re:Thank Goodness...

[QMO]

Quote: "Meanwhile, the invasion demonstrated to the world that the U.S. will not be restrained by law, ethics, or common sense"

Which is why we NUKED the stinkers in Iraq!

Go, Joe!!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea has been very vocal as to why they have acquired nukes.
1). Bush named them as part of the axis of evil then invaded Iraq against UN sanction.
2). If Bush does not have to follow UN rules then neither do they.

Oh, well if Bush called then names, I could see why they would want to build bombs capable of turning Seoul into a big crater.

I guess North Korea is blameless in this matter, and Bush is just a big ol' meanie. Thanks for straightening it out for us.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[plague3106]

Yes, b/c as everyone knows, the Chinese are too stupid to come up with anything on thier own..

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong Argument, he isn't interested in doing you a favour. He's interested in doing his rich friends a favour and they make larger profits if oil is available but the price is high.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, funny one. got any Titanic jokes while we're hitting these things at the height of their popularity?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well if Bush called then names, I could see why they would want to build bombs capable of turning Seoul into a big crater.

Typical reactionary right winger... There are 2 sides to every story, try looking at the other one once in a while.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[John Harrison]

Forget the nukes. NK has a massive amount of conventional weaponry locked, loaded, and pointed at Seoul. The instant hostilities erupt Seoul will be reduced to rubble without a nuke. NK has a gun to SK's head and is ready to pull the trigger. Hopefully reports that the government is about to collapse are true and more reasonable people will come to power.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[rpdillon]

Wow, slashdot mods are quite a bunch (heh, I should know, I'm one of em). If ever an insightful post was written, here it is, and yet the mindless slashbot "Teh weaponz WeRe NOT in AyRaq!!!" posts getting modded +5 and this one languishes with no mods.

I know Slashdot is a left-leaning place (hey, that's OK), but this is the worst I've seen. Before politics, we're supposed to be nerds - you know, people who like to argue intelligently (and hack stuff!). Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[demachina]

Technicly North Korea is on China's southern border though that part of their border is in the north end of their territory

Re:Thank Goodness...

[saider]

What I heard on the radio recently was that his main motivation for Iraq was to set up a functioning democracy in the middle east. He understands that the best way to combat terrorism is to give people something better to do with their time. But people living under opressive regimes are not able to do this. He chose Iraq because the population was more accustomed to dealing with a secular government. Once a more benign government is in place, then the people will become more interested in building their own country and creating their own opportunity.

That's the theory I heard anyway. I can see the "get tyranny out of the way" argument. I think selling the American people on the war using WMDs was not the best idea, but I doubt he could have gotten the war going otherwise. So in his mind, distracting the American public is justified by the end of establishing a free Iraq.

I do not like this approach, although I do understand it. Doing the war alone was insane. If he could have waited a few more months, I'm sure more countries would have grown tired of Saddam's shennanigans w.r.t. the weapons inspectors.

I do not think he is using it as a get-rich-quick scheme, although people are getting rich quick. I think he is more motivated by the "right thing to do" mentality. How can freeing 25 million people not be the right thing? If some friends get rich, so much the better.

Remeber, these are my observations of his thinking, not my own ideas.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[imroy]

And WTF does Iran have to do with Jihadists? From I've read and seen (on the news), Iran is slowly becoming more moderate. There's a younger generation that grew up after the islamic revolution (or whatever it was called). A lot of them want the country to open up to the west. President Khatami is a reformist and has often clashed with the hard-line islamists that run the government. The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil". George W. would make a terrible diplomat...

On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the USA. Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south. There's a monument where visitors go to weep over the fallen "heros" of the Korean war. Every evening the government-controlled TV shows a military parade. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-US, anti-west sentiment just waiting to go off.

No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[geekpolitico]

While I completely agree with your comment .. we never realistically posed a military threat to N. Korea. Kim could mortar Seoul off the face of the planet before we could ever launch a crippling strike on N. Korea. And given all the new Worlds of Warcraft players in S. Korea, that might cripple our economy.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[good soldier svejk]

Is there any proof of that besides what came from the Iraqi regime?

Well, Glaspie never denied the authenticity of the transcript. Later, in a drive-by interview she told a British journalist, "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."

Re:Thank Goodness...

[starm_]

Yup everyone in the world (except in the US apparently) as known about this for years. Why do you think 90% of "the rest of the world" was shocked that Bush was elected for a second time. Republicans laught at us when we say we were scared of Bush. But these events are just what we were scared of. Bush is responsible for this. This is the logical result of the irresponsible meddling with the world. Bush is effectively following the path towards the destruction of this planet in the name of oil and money to his rich friends.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[matyas47]

I think you have it right when you said that Iraq has potentially ruined the legitimacy of American foreign policy. I do think that the US invasion of Iraq and deposition of its leader has been the primary motivating force behind the increasing belligerance of both North Korea and Iran. Nothing motivates a people like being called "evil" by the President of a hostile nation.
The fact of the matter is that Bush blew it. We had a strong consensus on world security during the Clinton and first Bush administrations, one which endured into the early days of W's first term and was arguably at its peak in the immediate weeks after 9/11. But Bush chose to squander his alliances. George W. Bush is no FDR, he's no JFK, he's no Reagan - he's not even Nixon. His utter failure as both statesman and commander-in-chief is manifest in both his mishandling of the war in Iraq and his inability to adequately deal with both Iran and North Korea.
I have no doubt that North Korea is a miserable place, run by an utter madman. I have no doubt that Kim is simply posturing for more aid and concessions. But I think that any world leader, faced with a far more powerful enemy whose head of state freely applies the epithet "evil" to anyone he doesn't like, would be looking for ways to defend himself.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Saddam's defense, he cleared the invasion with Bush41 to prevent US anger

Is there any proof of that besides what came from the Iraqi regime?

Immediately following the invasion I was watching a news conference during which a White House spokesperson said "We didn't think he was going to take so much". Proof enough for me that the invasion was sanctioned by the US gov't, and that the Operation: Desert Storm was a reaction to his greed, not the actual invasion.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kosi]

You don't realize we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?

No, because you can only realize something that is real. But all those reasons your regime brought up are just plain lies.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LilMikey]

I didn't realize that the administration even read Slashdot!

They gotta get their news from some place and they already admitted to not reading papers.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[mackman]

I've got it! Iraq must have moved all it's WMD to North Korea just moments before the US found them. Attacking N Korea isn't a new war, we're just finishing what we started in Iraq! This totally justifies our ongoing war in Iraq! I bet Bush is thrilled! Look at the Wookie!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[drinkypoo]

It might have been a good idea to go to Iraq if, as alleged, he was trying to purchase sarin-laden artillery shells. We (the U.S.) supposedly found shells with traces of sarin in them; whether that is true or bullshit I don't know, but it doesn't seem entirely unlikely.

You are quite right, however, that other nations are perceiving the need to have THE BOMB in order to keep us off their turf. I don't blame them, but it is extremely scary.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[kyojin the clown]

Cuba

?

Have you been to Cuba? It's probably the least Evil place on the planet. Seriously.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I remember it well. North Korea was having government-organized 'spontaneous' demonstrations against the growing threat posed by the U.S. Crowds of thousands would chant anti-US slogans. They even had a huge sign showing a US diplomat being crushed under the weight of a nuclear bomb. (You could see his blond hair and briefcase sticking out at the bottom!)

North Korea had admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, but not *publicly*. They simply informed the US of this fact, astounding US diplomats. When the media took off on this, the DPRK backtracked. Kim Jong II started making bizarre statements like: "We have no nuclear weapons. Our research is for energy-production only. Those who oppose us will be drowned in a sea of (nuclear) fire!"

They also made some claims about how their long-range missiles were capable of delivering a nuclear device into the US, which is, I think, the main reason we're developing an anti-missile shield. Test fired a few of them, just to show us.

And then, the US invaded Iraq. Something about weapons of mass destruction.

You must understand, the average North Korean believes that the US is about to invade at any instant. When they had that train-explosion last year, people thought, its finally happened, the US has dropped a nuclear bomb on us.

In North Korea, the government has total control over what people do and think. Its fairly common knowledge that they test chemical weapons on their own citizens, have massive concentration camps (death rate estimated at 10% per year), frequently drive the population to starvation under the 'military first' policy, imprison and kill dissidents without trial, etc, etc.

The latest insanity: All citizens must have one of 5 govenment approved haircuts. Growing long hair starves the brain of energy, and makes you stupid.

This stuff sounds incredible, but you can easily google to verify any of it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kosi]

I wish China would sort this mess out.

Do you really want to exchange one poor idiot of devil (Kim) against a horde of mighty devils (KP of China)?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[gekko513]

But the inspection in closed and tightly controlled Iraq worked just fine, as we have learned after the invation, so your argument is the one that is quite foolish.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[diamondsw]

I wish China would sort this mess out. They have already annexed Tibet, want to annex Taiwan, why the hell don't they sort out this festering sore on their northern border?

Because China is manipulating that "sore on its border" to do its dirty work in the region while it keeps its hands clean as a "modern, capitalist, open China".

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadam continually thumbed his nose at the UN.

Yeah... good thing the US doesn't do that. I'd hate to be unilaterally invaded by a pissed of member nation.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Has it occured to anybody yet that Bush might not achieve cheap oil, but he might prevent inflation of oil prices? When we say Bush is there for oil, we seem to be assuming he's trying to bring gas prices down to under $1/gallon again or somesuch. Maybe he's trying to prevent gas prices from skyrocketing us into bankruptcy, and what we're seeing now isn't even a scratch on the surface of what's coming next?

In fact...prices seem to still be going up....

What's the slope on that? Compare it to what we have *after* Iraq's been successfully subdued and their oil export program is back in service...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think we should have invaded North Korea, while ignoring Iraq?

I disagree with both points.

Saddam had to go, and we had the means to remove him, so we did.

Kim Jong Il also has to go, but we need to consider the interests of Japan, South Korea, and our other allies in the region when dealing with them... Not to mention the People's Republic of China. A country that shoots down our surveillance planes just to remind us who's boss in the region could not be expected to react well if we moved a couple carrier fleets to their coastline and invaded a border state which is on freindly terms with them.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that, Bush only took a hardline stance after Korea broke the agreement that was made with the Clinton administration.

And North Korea only broke the agreement after the U.S. broke it first, by pushing the agreed-upon 2003 deadline to 2008, threatening to leave North Korea in an energy crisis. Did you expect them to just do without power for five years? They had to resume their heavy water reactor program.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kosi]

Two questions always come up in my mind:

WhoTF said that it is ok for the USA to have nukes but not ok for Iraq, NK or else? And WhoTF asked the USA to enforce this?

No one? Then whyTF do the USA dare to act like they had anything to say to anyone outside their own borders?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has a lot of american bases. China is unlikely to host any american troops. If US to attack the North Korea the whole South Korea will look like a one big crater.The secondary target will be Japan. The target of opportunity is the US West coast. The NK will want to inflict maximum damage to aggressor.

During the Korean war China was one of the big supporters of North Korea. I don't know if relationshops gone so bad between China and North Korea but if North Korea to be defeated by US it would mean a lot of US bases and US troops on the border of China. I very much doubt that considering the great interest in annexing Taiwan by China they would want a big american force so close to them. That would mean that China should provide at least secret support to North Korea in case of any millitary operation against North Korea. After nuclear response from North Korea to US aggression the americans would have to unleash tremendous millitary power on North Korea. It means a lot of destruction and a lot of civilian casualties, so don't expect starving koreans to meet US troops as liberators. With proper millitary support from China it would be much worse then what we have in Iraq now.

So instead of flexing muscles US should make the North Korean regime crumble from within. They should be doing everything they can to make people in North Korea to see that it is not the US is evil but the communist party of North Korea is evil. Then the nukes will not matter. The only problem here is that there is no profits in this path and it takes a lot more time so it is not acceptable to the current US administration.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ynohoo]

I don't recall China being run by a cult of personality for a a few decades now, although they both claim to be socialist. In my opinion, Sweden is more socialist than either of them.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dread_ed]

"Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation."

This sentence seems to try to establish a causal relationship between Washington politics and the development of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans. If we briefly examine the timeline we see contrary evidence: Koreans try to get nukes, we offer to do something, they still try to get nukes in spite of our intervention, we change tactics, they still try to get nukes in spite of our new tactics. It is obvious that they operated from day 1 with the intentions of having offensive nuclear capabilities and the actions that we took did nothing to deter them.

I will posit this: regardless of the position of Washington, China, or any government other than the North Koreans themselves, the North Koreans would have sought out and acquired offensive nuclear technology.

The world is rapidly approaching a time and place where nuclear weapons are not out of the reach of any country with the desire to posess them. I can even see individuals with great wealth and/or political power with their own personal arsenal. Those that acquire them will do so for their own reasons and motivations and efforts to stop them will most likely prove fruitless.

Sleep well...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ynohoo]

Sure, I think the "horde of mighty devils" would probably take better care of the population.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LilMikey]

That should be our new tactic. We'll let 'em have all their nukes but they must allow Walmart and Kroger to open stores across their land. We'll rot 'em from the inside out!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sweet lil' N. Korea" had nukes before we went into Iraq

Says who? Sources, please. Where did you get this idea?

they have only just acknowledged it now.

NK have "acknowledged" many things in the past that have turned out to be only idle bluff and boast.

That was the problem.

"The problem" as far as US foreign policy was concerned, was that NK was on the road to developing nukes.

And obviously the cases of Pakistan and India prove that mere possession of atomic weapons technology is not enough to provoke the USA. In Pakistan's case, it's particularly telling, since it's everything Iraq was and worse -- in fact, Pakistan is like a combination of the worst aspects of Iraq and the worst of Afghanistan, part lawless anarchy, part military dictatorship, part Islamic theocracy. They can have nukes, but the secular Iraq couldn't? Obviously there are things going on here that the mass media aren't exploring.

You can thank all the BS appeasement talks in the 90s (a la President Carter) for allowing this situation to develope.

http://www.lucatelese.it/images/diariodiguerra/rum sfeld_saddam.jpg

Now we are forced to only talk for fear that they will use the nukes

How do you know something else isn't going on? Maybe the US wants NK to have nukes and be aggressive about developing them, to keep China in rein, just like the US during WWII wanted Stalinist Russia (which killed more civilians during the war than the Axis powers combined) to be tough, dangerous and aggressive as a deterrent to Germany.

At least with Iran we still have a chance to keep them from finishing the work. We can't make the same mistake twice.

It already happened in Pakistan and India. Your criteria for invasion and domination obviously has some other characteristic besides nuclear weapons possession -- what is it? Is it ideological?

Is it okay to tell people what they can and can't have based only on their belief system or government type -- or alliances? What good rationale is there to permit Pakistan to have nukes but deny Iran? What's the substantive difference between the two countries, besides the fact that Iran has a much more advanced industrial economy?

If you really think this is just about nukes, you're terminally naive.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil".

Yes it is slowly changing and if you had actually read what I wrote you would have noticed my last line hoping for it to continue to change for the better. But it's also useful to note when things go the other way -- such as when the Revolutionary Council kicked all of the moderate legislator's off the ballots in the elections a few years ago. Iran could go either way and it's foolish to ignore this possibility.

On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader.

I'm not disputing any of what you said about North Korea. But Kim Jong il (like Saddam for that matter) isn't motivated by fanatical religious beliefs. Everything he has done is about staying in power. He doesn't get to stay in power if he nukes Seoul (or Toyko or Honolulu for that matter). Why do you think they were willing to give up the weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact? Engagement is the correct answer to North Korea -- not saber rattling.

No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.

When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ynohoo]

That thought had occurred to me... but to my mind it looks like a failure on their part.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Jay Carlson]

A while back I said to a coworker:

"North Korea is being bad again. What are we going to give them this time?"

His response sticks with me:

"Oh, probably about 15 megatons. You know, there's a difference between nuclear and thermonuclear weapons that they may have forgotten..."

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LilMikey]

I think the way to deal with the proliferation problem is to build a missile defense shield.

As stupid of idea as I think missile defense currently is (you invest in research before you start building shit... we're just blowing our money on rockets that can't hit the broad side of a barn) I would love have seen 200bil on missile defense instead of 200 bil + 100k lives on an invasion.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Red Pointy Tail]

So what do you propose? Annex them, and send South Korea and possibly Japan to oblivion in the process?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb ass, we had to invade Iraq to gurantee a reliable oil source for the near future. You know since it will be decades before we can move away from an oil-dependent economy? I personally appreciate the fact that our government is working to ensure our entire society doesn't collapse into utter chaos.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parent threads are correct, but not completely. The deal that Clinton/Carter negotiated in 1994 had provisions for regular shipments of fuel from US to North Korea to cover for the power shortage while the light water reactors were being built. Problem was that when the Republicans won the majority in Congress in 1996, they blocked the fuel shipments to NK. NK saw this as a breach of the deal they had negotiated with Clinton, decided the US could not be trusted very far after all, and resumed their own nuclear "power" program.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[fucksl4shd0t]

Saddam was obviously lied to internally. :)

He approached my uncle back in 2000 or so, said he wanted my uncle to build him a bomb. So my uncle said "Give me the plutonium and we'll see." So he took their plutonium, and in turn gave them a shoddy bomb base form used pinball machine parts.

So yeah, Saddam hadn't yet figured out he'd been lied to and his subordinates were engaged in CYA politics trying to keep themselves and their families from disappearing in the night.

And my uncle? He disappeared soon after that, him and his car, and this kid he likes to hang out with. Nobody's seen or heard from them since.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ChrisMaple]

Don't kill that rabid dog! It doesn't belong to you!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[MooseByte]

"While I completely agree with your comment .. we never realistically posed a military threat to N. Korea."

I should have better scoped my comments to point out deft (as opposed to daft) diplomacy and other options, rather than implying that somehow invading N.K. was what we should have done. Sorry about that.

I do think however that prior to invading Iraq, N.K. was taking the threat of invasion *very* seriously. Somehow if we could have worked with China and come up with a document that guaranteed N.K.'s security on the sole condition that they not develop or deploy WMDs, something could have been worked out. Instead our government has practiced "playground diplomacy" the past few years and seriously screwed the proverbial pooch.

N.K. is a dying regime, we all know that. All we needed to do was keep saying "nice doggy" while the icy grip of regime death encircled.

Unfortunately now that we've mired ourselves in Iraq, they know damn well we can't do anything. And they've also watched America act overtly and unilaterally to take down a regime in a "preemptive" act. Basically we've proven their every paranoia valid.

That leaves N.K. with no option but to build as many nukes as fast as possible while we're tied up elsewhere. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but from N.K.'s perspective I wouldn't have expected any other course of action.

"And given all the new Worlds of Warcraft players in S. Korea, that might cripple our economy."

Agreed. :-)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad Bush was reelected. If we hadn't "meddled" millions would still be oppressed by Saddam, and the Taliban.

I'm proudto have this President destroy those who stand in the way of the US. Nobody can stop us now.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[EastCoastSurfer]

In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.

Are you kidding? Clinton and Carter made the huge mistake of believing the crazy NK dictator. He said "I don't have any weapons and don't want to make any," and they basically said "cool, here's $10B and some plans to make these types of reactors."

If anything Clinton and Carter failed miserably, because they failed to realize NKs bluff and not play hardline enough to force them allow inspections ect...

In short Clinton/Carter are the ones who allowed this current situation to happen. Bush is now in the hard position of trying to clean it up. If you want to bash Bush, then bash him for how he's handling the situation that was handed to him. Don't try to blame the NK situation on him though.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kosi]

By killing them faster than letting them starve to death? Or by not even letting them be born (forced abortions, even in the last month(!), or murdering the newborn is common practice in China)?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense? Do you not understand how dependent the entire World economy is on oil right now? Do you not understand how little oil is left at all? Have you taken a moment to think about how your day-to-day life would be affected if there was suddenly no oil available? Am I supposed to be pissed that my government is doing the only thing they can to preserve the quality of life for its citizens until the time that we can actually work past our oil dependency? Nobody is happy about what we had to do, but at least we went into a country with horrible conditions and are going to see things through to help them set up a stable government and improve quality of life for all of its citizens in the long run.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but I do have a larger penis.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[plague3106]

Or a test by NK.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you forget: N. Korea doesn't have the oil.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Red Pointy Tail]

North Korea is much more delicate than Iraq. Seoul (pop:14 million) itself is within artillery range of North Korea, to talk nothing of missles. They have more artillery than any other army, the world largest submarine fleet, 700 naval vessels, and the third largest standing army (so they can just send waves of drones across the DMZ to Seoul, just 35 miles away). And now nukes to add to the fun. Still gung-ho about invading them?

Even if you want to bomb them to submission, they will destroy South Korea and Japan first. Acceptable?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kosi]

What dog?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[NanoGator]

"Yeah, good thing we raided big bad Iraq, while sweet lil' N. Korea was doing all of this."

In all fairness, USA has allies working on a diplomatic solution to N Korea. This is exactly what you all wanted them to do with Iraq. You should be happy we haven't attacked N K.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[AvitarX]

Your article does not mention them being convinced at all.

They were asked to do three things though

1. Not use WMD
2. Not use Terrorism
3. Not attack Isreal

They did 2 (failed attampts) and 3 but noit one against the Americans.

Of course they did immediatly aftaowards gas our allies (Kurds) as we left them out to dry. Funny how the Kurds are not so trusting of us now.

And I think the point everyone was trying to make is that it WASN'T to late for Korea, but now it is.

All I can say is Kim currently seams to be paranoid and defensive, but not likly to attack his neighbors unprovoked (a funny look may be provocation though), but he will not live forever and has possible successors he has not killed and we do not know about them.

Iraq would have been over with Sudam's death (well it would have been a mess, but its power would have been reduced).

Cuba is done with Castro (they arn't a threat but just trying to point out that a modern dictatorship with succession is rare).

I don't think NK is as big of a threat as Iraw or Iran would be with Nucular weapons, but that is not to say they wern't the only ones that got there and that they are safe.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[imroy]

When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more.

Oh man, you sound like some parody of Bush. Is Bush now trying to recycle the September 11/Saddam Hussein links into an excuse to attack Iran? Sorry, we don't get Fox news here in Australia.

I agree with most of what you're saying. And you even agree that Iran is slowly changing and opening up. But then you go and tack that bit on the end about religious fanatics and flying airplanes into buildings. WTF?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[joeljkp]

I agree. I can't see Bush or his administration invading Iraq simply for oil or any of the myriad other conspiracy theories mentioned further up on the page. Instead, I see the motivation in Saddam's continued belligerance toward the UN and US, his shenanigans after 9/11, his repeated banning of the weapons inspectors, his refusal to give up required documents, etc. Saddam was not your everyday happy-go-lucky dictator.

Bush's motivations may have been misguided, and his administration overzealous, but I don't see them as being conspiratorial.

Of course, if anyone has any actual evidence of alterior motives that passes the reasonable doubt test, I'd be glad to see them. A departmental memo entitled "Let's go get some Iraqi oil!" perhaps?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Ced_Ex]

If he's American, I doubt it, they legally aren't suppose to be in Cuba.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

So... what were those truck leaving with in such a hurry whenever weapons inspectors arrived at a site?

Even Blix was adamant that Saddam was still hiding a lot of information and/or materials from his inspection team, and failed to account for a lot of weapons which he was known to have once had.

Either Saddam had weapons (which are now God-only-knows-where), or else he thought it was in his interest to deliberately deceive the world into believing that he did. Either way, he called for his own beat-down.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[AvitarX]

Pretend this post was proof read and higher then a 5th grade level.

THNX

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

>As stupid of idea as I think missile defense >currently is (you invest in research before you >start building shit... we're just blowing our >money on rockets that can't hit the broad side >of a barn)

Maybe the people doing this aren't as incompetent as you think, and they have a system that works but they don't want to demonstrate it until it is too late for an adversary to build in counter measures.

You never know - all the hitech weapons systems developed before the first Gulf War seemed to work pretty well.

>I would love have seen 200bil on
>missile defense instead of 200 bil + 100k lives
>on an invasion

Exactly, because America has an advantage when it comes to spending money, but not when it comes to 'spending' lives.

It seems to me that if you spend enough money you can do anything which isn't disallowed by the physics. As far as I can see, there isn't any deep reason why missile defense is impossible. It doesn't even require particularly advanced tecnology, in fact nuclear tipped intereceptors were possible with even 1950's technology but banned by the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty.

If I were US President, I'd leave the ABM and start building a shitload of nuclear tipped interceptors. It would explain the rumours about the US developing a new range of micro-nukes better than the daft idea of using them as bunker busters.

And even if it doesn't work very well, you can always lie about it to North Korea, and threaten them with massive retaliation.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that was the parent poster's entire point.

How to deal with North Korea is not entirely up to us, because we have allies with greater compelling interests in the region.

Now, if North Korea were to sponsor terrorism on the scale which Iraq was and Iran is, then we might be more inclined to tell South Korea that we need to clean house, regardless of their preference.

As it is, our main obligation is to support our allies in the region.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[3TimeLoser]

WhoTF said that it is ok for the USA to have nukes but not ok for Iraq, NK or else?

Nobody.

And WhoTF asked the USA to enforce this?

Nobody.

Then whyTF do the USA dare to act like they had anything to say to anyone outside their own borders?

Because ICBMs tend to ignore borders. If some nutjob dictator is threatening you with them, then some reasonable precautions/politics/defenses are in order.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

... gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.

So, what happens when he uses up the virgins? We just never get the whole story!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, those were to one given to him by Rumsfeld when he was still the USA's buddy.

Source, please?

For somebody who is so exercized about lying, you are throwing around a pretty wild accusation (that the undersecretary of defense gave illegal nerve gas to another country) with no proof whatsoever.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[incog8723]

In fact, the US must have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Who would invade a country that had nuclear capabilities?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[fforw]

The point was we invaded the wrong country. Obviously Iraq has no weapons, and N.K. does.

The point is that everybody knew that Iraq had no WMDs. That's why it was possible to attack them. That's why North Korea makes sure they have WMDs.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Ced_Ex]

Weird. I can only count one.

USA

Too bad you got modded troll.

In the world's eyes, the US is walking a very thin line.

If you think about it, which country is most likely in the coming year or two to be invading another country?

As stated on CNN, the Pentagon has "updated Iran war plans". If there wasn't an intention, there wouldn't be a plan. I'd be curious if the Pentagon has war plans for the invasion of the Bahamas. Probably not.

What country wouldn't be scared if they hear about the US military pointing the barrel in their direction? A large problem is that Americans have never experienced what it is like to be starring at the business end of the shotgun. If they understood this, they'd see a lot of things in a different light.

Simply put, the world right now is like a bunch of paranoid people locked into a room together. Everyone is reaching for the lead pipes to protect themselves from the other guy looking to protect himself.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[IthnkImParanoid]

[conspiracy theory]

Or, he could be providing a cheap oil supply to the companies his family has a well documented relationship with (including giving him the financial backing for his previous business ventures) so they can sell it at the current market price for hefty profits. Nothing to do with lowering what we pay, everything to do with who.

[/conspiracy theory]

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

We should send in "Team America"!! They did it once and
they can do it again.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kim Jong knows that if he attacks Seoul, Tokyo or Honolulu we can turn Pyongyang into a glass parking lot. He might rattle his saber but that's as far as it's likely to go.

He knows it, but he doesn't care! If he cared about his country or his people, he wouldn't be putting them through the incredible on-going famine.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[vk2]

Who said Dubbya invaded Iraq to lower your bills? He is not there for you, its for companies like XOM. A brief look at the stock charts of any major US oil company will tell the tale.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

Well, then have the UN handle this without US involvement. I for one, would be happy to have say, Germany, foot the bill for fuel for North Korea.

The fact is that if the US didn't try, then nobody would. It's always easier to critize someoneone elses work then do it yourself.

Besides, the treaty was upheld by Clinton. It took him a few tries, but he did fulfill his promise of fuel. North K. kept developing weapons anyway.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Steve525]

I think you misinterpreted his analogy. I believe all the GP was trying to say was that North Korea is acting in an at least somewhat sane manner, and is unlikely to provoke the US by a direct attack - even a low budget one such as 9/11. As crazy as Kim might be, he is interested in his own survival and maintaining his power. If North Korea is reduced to a parking lot, he looses, no matter how many Americans he can take on the way.

The Islamic fundamentalists don't have this concern. They don't represent any nation-state so there is no effective way to retaliate against their supporting population. Many are less concerned about their own survival than their cause. This makes it impossible to discourage behaviour that will be bad for everyone if they preceive that the behavour will help their cause.

No, I am not concerned about North Korea using an atomic bomb. What I am concerned about is a cash starved North Korea and a rich, bomb starved Islamic fundamentalist getting together.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[duffbeer703]

Bush and his people aren't stupid, they just have a very selective set of morals.

The whole purpose of the Iraq invasion was to remove everybody's enemy. As long as Saddam's Iraq existed as a state, the various powerful ethnic and religious factions in the region were united by a common bad guy: Iraq. (I'm talking about governments, not the man on the street)

With the Iraqi distraction removed, the Arabs and Persians will continue doing what they do best: fight with each other.

While the Shittes and Sunnis are busy killing each other in the Middle East, they won't be killing Americans on US soil. US & British companies will also play the factions against each other to get better oil deals.

You're just looking at modern colonialism, which is a necessary evil to finance the outragous costs and inefficiencies in our sprawling post-urban society.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[kmhebert]

If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.

The United States never had an official policy to starve its own people into submission. The United States does not kill dissidents and their entire families for saying a single word against the government in power. You may not like America, that is your right, but to advocate for more North Koreas is to advocate for dictatorship, concentration camps, mass starvation, and zero freedom. It is absolutely disgusting that you have promoted this viewpoint. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I don't want to see Tel Aviv or Washington nuked anytime soon.

I do.

I don't care for these two cities...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

China and North Korea diverged during the 1970s politically.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[hkmwbz]

"So... what were those truck leaving with in such a hurry whenever weapons inspors arrived at a site?"

I guess they were carrying entire dismantled WMD factories! That's right, they must have had inflatable factories and equipment so that they could just deflate it whenever they showed up unannounced!

Even the CIA said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Face it. Accept it. Bush lied.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Saddam's defense, he cleared the invasion with Bush41 to prevent US anger

Is there any proof of that besides what came from the Iraqi regime?

They said so on an episode of "Frontline" so it must be t3h true!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Catbeller]

Read the PNAC site. Your smoking gun is there. Failing that, google PNAC and Iraq invasion and oil.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the [other country].

Wow, this quote works both ways!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[highcon]

...We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat...

Sounds a lot like this other country I know, the United States. I don't know how long it will take people to realize that the ordinary citizen, with all the "brainwashing" that supposedly goes on doesn't give a fuck about international politics and just wants to go on with their daily business. As for the Korean war, let's not start mentioning other wars where the North of something attacked the South of something or vice versa due to political reasons. The United States got involved in a war between 2 other groups to advance it own agenda, as it tends to do. Any anti-US sentiment is IMHO justified, especially since North Korea feels (and quite rightly) threatened by the current administration of a country that attacked it 50 years ago.

There is no "powder keg waiting to go off" since the populace is not in control of the nukes (or anything else for that matter). The people in charge aren't going to go start a war because they know they will lose (and the people at the top have the most to lose). They will try to arm themselves so as to create a deterent to the attack from the US that they know is coming.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Fallingcow]

Wait... does that make Barbara his... his... EWWWW!!!!!

No wonder the Bush twins are so ugly. Inbred.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile on the Korean Slashdot:

On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the "Axis of Evil". Its citizens are taught that Hussein started the Iraqi war by attacking on 9/11, even though there's documents showing that they had nothing to do with it. Every evening the government-influenced TV shows a military attack. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-Korean, anti-east sentiment just waiting to go off.

Just sayin'

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that Iran is on a very slow road to reformation, but they also have a dead set fast-track goal of getting into the nuclear club, at great cost as well. It doesn't help that they're a very active supporter of terrorist groups either.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Kehvarl]

On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the USA.

When I first skimmed that, I thought you were talking about the US, and I actually read it as :
"On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat of evil and attacks against the USA."

creepy isn't it?

However, I do agree with you that North Korea is potentially a much greater threat than any other we have right now.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Catbeller]

Oh, it's quite easy to visit Cuba. Change planes in Central America, and fly to Cuba from there. The Cuban customs will stamp a piece of paper and place it in your passport, so you can toss the evidence when you leave.

I feel quite sad for Cuba. Eventually the U.S. will come back in and "liberate" the country. Then it will be a violent free market hell with a surging infant death rate. At least if you keep your nose clean there today, you can live to be quite old and healthy, if not rich.

If the U.S. hadn't kept the country isolated from the NA market for the last half century, perhaps we would have seen the world's best socialist experiment. Maybe they could have made it work, like China has. With a 90 mile separation from the U.S., they could have become quite the tourist destination and manufacturing center. I think they are instead doomed to a military/corporate invasion in the near future. Poor bastards.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. We only oppose countries that present themselves as our enemy. So, no, we wouldn't be invading every country that has prospects of developing a nuclear weapon.

The WMD and surrounding evidence of Saddam's continued pursuit of WMD found in Iraq prove that the WMD was a very real threat, among the other threat's that Saddam and his allies bring to the table. WMD was not the only reason we invaded Iraq. Let's not forget that small amounts of WMD were found in Iraq -- just not the large stockpiles that our intelligence indicated. Intelligence from several countries corroborated the fact that Saddam had WMD and was pursuing further WMD prospects. The question then becomes, was all of the intelligence gathered by all of these people wrong or were the WMDs moved to a safer location such as Iran and/or Syria for later use? By using common sense in combination with the evidence and by giving the fine intelligence officers and their leaders the benefit of the doubt (as so many were willing to give Saddam, a proven liar), it is easy to conclude what most likely happened -- Saddam moved his WMD to a safe place. Regardless, it would have been irresponsible to let such a threat lay idle as you and others like you would have had us done. If we had listened to you, we may have two North Koreas, at this point -- not just one. If we would have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq, you would have been screaming about how we didn't give diplomacy a chance. You and others like you have been exposed for the dangerous pacifists that you are. The days of pacifism are long over. Don't worry, everyone that opposes the US will have their chance at peace with us as well as their chance at death if they so desire.

Also, we are far from toothless. North Korea's nuclear deterrent has been nullified by the fact that the US would wipe them off of the face of the Earth if they ever decided to use them against us. That's not something that they can threaten the US with. This is very similar to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) except the destruction wouldn't be mutual. Instead I like to call it NAD -- North Korea's Assured Destruction. Given our position, we have some very formidable and destructive teeth to fear after all.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[casuist99]

An additional and quite serious problem is that you can't win wars simply through bombing (with the exception of a particular kind of bomb - but it can be argued that no one wins in that scenario).

The problem I see is that any invasion to secure the ground would be ill-fated. North Korea has a 1.2 million man standing army with 6.4 million fit for service (The entire male population is conscripted at 17 years of age for training and service).

Now, I don't know about you, but invading a country which reveres its dead leader as a god, has a 1.2 million man army, and a population who truly (thanks to gov't propaganda) thinks the US is the great satan, sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[phiz187]

... gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.

So, what happens when he uses up the virgins? We just never get the whole story!

I thought it was 40 virgins, man this econonmy has got everybody down.
-PHiZ

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

> As scary as that SOB (Kim Jong il) is I'm more worried about Iran in the grand scheme of things. North Korea at least (by and large) still behaves as a nation-state.

You're seriously fucking deluded. Iran has a bunch of mullahs locked in a power struggle with moderates and a young population....

Oh wait, you think the country's just full of screaming ragheads, don't you?

Pathetic.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[highcon]

Or y'all could have just lifted the sanctions on Iraq that kept the population starving and dependent on Saddam for food and medicine, which would have let the well educated and motivated Iraqi people get rid of him on their own. But we can't have the Iraqi people in control of Iraq, they're much too smart to allow American corporations to secure exclusive contracts. Repeat after me: American sanctions on Iraq kept Saddam in power on purpose. He just happened to outlive his usefulness.

all the dead soldiers appreciate it

These victims of the elite agendas of your country have a place in my heart, right next to the Iraqis that died as a direct result of the sanctions designed to advance the same agendas. I feel all their lives were needlessly wasted, and none is any more or less tragic then the next.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

> the world largest submarine fleet, 700 naval vessels

Have you seen those submarines? "Seaworthy" is not a word to describe them. Most hold about a dozen people. They're used for infiltration.

Their navy is largely fishing boats with some guns on 'em.

Human wave tactics might clear the minefields, but they're otherwise just not effective.

It's the artillery that's the problem. Lots and lots and lots of artillery. If there's a war, Seoul is absolutely toasted. So's the rest of the DPRK, and the Korean War will finally be over, but at a staggering cost. The destruction of Seoul and the loss of that massive chunk of the regional economy (a not-insignificant chunk of the WORLD economy) will probably spark a worldwide panic and depression.

Fun, eh? If I were a maniacal dictator, I wouldn't mind going out in a blaze of imfamy either...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ashayh]

As the AC says:They arent interested in doing you any favors.

Thats not to say they arent bothered about you at all! Long term control of Middle east oil has been on the US/UK/WEurope Govet agenda for the past several decades. This manipulation is what keeps developed countries' economies running.( Your high paying job is because of this economy.) And thats what pulls Saudi per capita income from 25K$ in 1980 to 5K$ in 2000... and all the while Saudi princes buy bigger jets and build bigger palaces.

Countries who toe the Western Line like Saudi, Kuwait can get away with tyranny.Just for starters, Saudi women cant drive, vote, get decent jobs.. thats half the total population.For all its oil, Saudi has intense poverty.. with great discrimination between Shias/Sunnis. How bout giving them some Freedom fries ?
Bush kept bitching about how Saddam did not disarm for 15 years after Gulf war 1, yet Kuwait took no stpes to get closer to democracy in that time. Dosent THAT matter at all?

Please stop bitching about high oil prices. You're still a LONG way from not affording it. Think about the fact that people in Developing countries ,who earn 100$ a month(for example) pay SIMILAR prices in $ as the US/others for oil . For them, even the slightest increase means great difficulty. Difficulties brought upon by Western meddling in the Middle east.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[SparafucileMan]

"But, you're right -- the current nukes (if they exist, which I'd doubt) wouldn't have been made with the light water reactors."

They exist. I am not sure if they 100% work or can hit Japan yet, but they exist. They've existed for at least 2 years, which is why no progress was made on the issue between NKorea and US/China.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Acquaint yourself with the facts before spouting nonsense, you fucking imbecile.

Oh I forgot, your lot aren't part of the "reality-based community". Your lot just makes up whatever crap they need to in order to persuade the world to go along with your own secret goals.

For you, history is an inconvenience, to be supplanted by well-placed and oft-repeated lies. Good for you that the mass rank and file of humanity is too stupid and unconcerned to understand what you are doing.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

Oh man, you sound like some parody of Bush. Is Bush now trying to recycle the September 11/Saddam Hussein links into an excuse to attack Iran? Sorry, we don't get Fox news here in Australia.

Oh Jesus Christ. Will the rampant anti-Americanism on the Internet ever die? I hardly expected to get vilified for agreeing with you.

My whole point and the reason that I "tacked" on that bit about airplanes going into buildings is that North Korea acts like a nation-state. Kim Jong il won't attack us because he knows that we will turn his country into a glass parking lot. Do you think that terrorists who want to die operate under that same assumption? Now think about the people currently running Iran (remember that the ultimate power does not rest with the President but rather with the Mullahs), the fact that they have ties to terrorist groups, the fact that they are still officially at war with an American ally (Israel) and the fact that they are on a fast track to getting nuclear weapons.

I'm sorry but Iran scares me way more then North Korea? I wish the reform movement the best -- because I don't really want to see them fail and have a nuclear 9/11 as a result.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Pyrosophy]

As crazy as Hussein might be, he is interested in his own survival and maintaining his power. If Iraq is reduced to a parking lot, he looses, no matter how many Americans he can take on the way.

Wow, what a great argument for... not going into Iraq. Secular leaders need engagement, but religious leaders call for wars.

I guess that makes the argument for going into Iran that almost any not particularly friendly Islamic country may be harboring these crazy people who care not a whit about their lives.

That's a lot of blood. And y'know, it probably won't make a dent.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[I8TheWorm]

I sure am glad that worked out!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they share a political ideology.

Really? So China hasn't changed one bit since 1977?

If N Korea was religious, or democratic they would have 'fixed' this years ago.

There was this thing when they tried that, it was called the Korean War.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

I think you misinterpreted his analogy

Thank you!

No, I am not concerned about North Korea using an atomic bomb. What I am concerned about is a cash starved North Korea and a rich, bomb starved Islamic fundamentalist getting together.

Which is why the correct answer is to continue to engage North Korea along with our allies and friends in the region as we are currently doing. They will get concessions (food, medicine, fuel) and we will keep the nukes out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.

Iran is far more scary. And I don't have a solution for that problem other then crossing my fingers and hoping that the reform movement produces results.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[squidguy]

North Korea at least (by and large) still behaves as a nation-state
Now there's a stretch. This is the same country that has a recent history of direct acts of terror (e.g., blowing up airliners in flight, sending hit squads to Indonesia to assasinate South Korean diplomats). Compound that with reports of cannabalism and the irrationality surrounding the cult of Juche, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung and you wonder what the heck kind of nation state it is.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[FurryFeet]

You know, of course, they don't car about your costs. They care about the big oil companies' costs. Then, Big Oil can continue to gouge you.
Have you checked their margins lately?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow that... totally ignores the facts of the matter. Is there a population explosion among Ethnic North Koreans? No. Non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities are expempted from the one-child policy because they aren't threatening to eat every goddamn thing on the planet as a population. Don't you think similar exceptions would be made in a new North Korean Satallite?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the propaganda involved, every nation should have the right to weep over it's fallen heroes. Even here in the US, the soldiers of the confederacy should be wept over. It doesn't matter if you are on the winning side or losing side, the right side or the wrong side, it still takes heroic guts to die in war, and it is a shame and something to remember, that we pay for all war with the lives of brave young kids.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ckaminski]

The simpletons bitching about what we could and should have done regarding North Korea are insane. You *DO* realize that a war right now with North Korea means a war with China, right? Right?

Now tell me it's a smart idea to drop nukes or smartbombs on Kim Jong Il?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

Wow, what a great argument for... not going into Iraq. Secular leaders need engagement, but religious leaders call for wars.

Actually if you had read my comment you would have noticed that I tossed in "(like Saddam for that matter)". In fact by bogging us down in Iraq Bush has tied our hands when it comes to dealing with Iran and North Korea. The likely course of action with North Korea wouldn't have changed much but with Iran it's a whole another story.

I guess that makes the argument for going into Iran that almost any not particularly friendly Islamic country may be harboring these crazy people who care not a whit about their lives.

I don't care how many crazy Jihadists a country is harboring. I care when they allow them to use their country as a base to attack America (Afghanistan) or when they are actively working on/possess WMD (Iran). I don't care what your politics are (I don't really like Bush either) but if you are an American or an Israeli the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran should send shivers up your spine.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Newander]

What I heard on the radio recently

Was that Hannity or Rush?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Steve525]

Wow, what a great argument for... not going into Iraq.

Agreed. I never thought Iraq was a threat to our safety.

I guess that makes the argument for going into Iran that almost any not particularly friendly Islamic country may be harboring these crazy people who care not a whit about their lives.

That's a lot of blood. And y'know, it probably won't make a dent.

Yes, pretty much the only way we'd ever get rid of most of the terrorists is to commit genocide. I'm not in favor of genocide, so it looks like with have to put up with those lunatics for a while. All we can really do is try to contain them and limit what damage they can do.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ckaminski]

I believe there's several reasons for doing what he did, and I agree with many of them.

WMD was a smokescreen. Plain and simple. In two years of occupation, they haven't turned up a single small cache of usable chemical weapons. You can't keep a secret that big that long, especially once Saddam was captured.

Iraq was turning into another Korean peninsula. If we're going to have to sit on a piece of land flying fighters and providing the navy to shore up an embargo while being shoved out of our host countries (Saudia Arabia), we might as well carve ourselves out an AFB in the middle of the country we're keeping tabs on.

Now we can host an entire division in the Middle East, and keep most of the local governments placated. The infidels aren't in Mecca anymore, after all.

Removing an evil dictator.

Giving lucrative contracts to buddies was just the icing on the cake.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

Compound that with reports of cannabalism and the irrationality surrounding the cult of Juche, Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung and you wonder what the heck kind of nation state it is.

It's a nation-state worried about it's own survival. Do you really think they are going to pick a nuclear war with the United States of America? A country that has hundreds of warheads that can be falling on North Korea less then 30 minutes from the time that Bush gives the order?

Yes it's a fscking evil place. Yes Kim Jong il is one sick bastard. But even Adolf Hitler himself refused to use WMD (chemical weapons) against the Allies because he understood the concept of overwhelming retaliation and deterrence. If Hitler couldn't be convinced to use WMD even as Germany was being defeated from both sides then what the hell makes you think that Kim Jong Il will?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

10s of thousands???? you do realise the NK army is over a million strong?

You also realise that the US would not dare contemplate using nukes in retaliation, they are not that stupid, despite what we all like to pretend. The US people would accept the massive slaughter of all the civilians in Pyongyang?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ckaminski]

Israel is 100% of Iran and Iraq's excuse for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Kim Jong Il wants a nuclear weapon to strongarm money, food and energy out of 1st world economies. I'd liken him to the fools who take hostages during bank robberies.

You make deals with terrorists, it'll come back to bite you. Make no mistake, Kim's a terrorist. His past exploits have proven so.

No one's bitching about Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, and those are far more likely to do so. Why? Because they built nukes because they have a mutual enemy to use them on. Guess what, things have gotten better over there on the Indian subcontinent.

North Korea, if they're not used against South Korea or American targets, or successfully used in economic terrorism, will end up being sold to the highest bidder.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

you do realise the NK army is over a million strong?

You do realize that the United States and South Korea are about three or four generations ahead of them in technology right?

You also realise that the US would not dare contemplate using nukes in retaliation, they are not that stupid, despite what we all like to pretend. The US people would accept the massive slaughter of all the civilians in Pyongyang?

If they nuked LA or Honolulu you can bet your ass that we would. The American people would cry out for blood. We've stated since the end of WW2 that we will respond with overwhelming force if we are hit with WMD. North Korea would cease to exist.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[MartinG]

to advocate for more North Koreas is to advocate for dictatorship, concentration camps, mass starvation, and zero freedom.

Whereas the US prefers to starve the children of other nations. It's okay though because it's worth it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[kmhebert]

That was a stupid comment for Albright to make, but you're wrong to say the U.S. starved the children of Iraq. Saddam used the oil-for-food money to build palaces for himself. That money also went to corrupt UN officials. Whatever your position on the war with Iraq, it is disingenuous to claim that the United States "starved" anyone.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[John Newman]

I think you have the chronology backwards there. The Bush cutoffs took place after North Korea violated their treaty obligations. (It was because they restarted plutonium production, wasn't it?)

Since I'm sure no one will listen to the AC below, I'll point out too that in neoconservative America, the one who has it backwards is YOU. [apologies]

The deal was struck in 1994. We build light-water reactors, they give up heavy water reactors and the plutonium in their spent fuel rods. Until the light-water reactors are complete, we supply them with an equivalent amount of fuel oil. Good deal. The UN seals, cameras and safeguards quickly went into place.

We, however, soft-reneged almost from the start. Getting the reactors built was like pulling teeth, and getting funding for the fuel shipments was even worse. Our deliveries were delayed more and more, and the reactors fell further and further behind schedule (a contract wasn't even awarded until 1999; even then, despite a planned completion by 2003, almost no work was done before the deal collapsed).

So NK soft-reneged. They secretly started a uranium-enriching program to supplement the plutonium-producing one that was now under UN guard. We didn't have any proof until late 2002, and when we showed them the proof they promptly admitted the program. But...

We had already suspended our side of the deal in early 2001. Yes, we may have suspected by then that the NK were breaking the deal, but we had no proof at all. And, of course, the oil shipments and light-water reactor were so far behind schedule that NK probably didn't consider our "formal" suspension any different from the status quo. We didn't officially kill the deal until late 2002, with proof/admission of uranium enrichment, but by then we were just sticking a knife into a corpse.

Summary? We cheated, then they cheated. We cut the rope without proof, then they admitted their cheating. Assign whatever varying motivation you want to all those actions. We cheated out of bureaucratic inertia, they cheated out of evilness. We cut the rope out of prudence, they enriched uranium out of evilness. But the fact is that, at least initially, they held to their end of the deal, and we didn't. Doesn't mean they can be trusted, or that we can't. Doesn't mean they're not evil, and we're not a beacon of goodness. It's just a fact.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

And obviously the cases of Pakistan and India prove that mere possession of atomic weapons technology is not enough to provoke the USA.

Well, maybe an ongoing state of war between NK/USA/SK plus NK having nukes is enough to provoke the USA. Remember, we are still in a state of war with NK. We only signed an armastice.

What this is really about is containing a madman who now says he has nukes. I also think there has been enough evidence in the media to corroborate the fact that he does.

Check your own house before calling someone naive.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Coryoth]

Forget the nukes. NK has a massive amount of conventional weaponry locked, loaded, and pointed at Seoul.

Indeed. NK has enough conventional fixed artillery that they can, right now, lob shells into central Seoul at the rate of several thousand shells an hour. Then they have short range rocket batteries that can hit Seoul. Would you believe they have the largest arsenal of short range rockets in the world? They basically bought up the entire Soviet rocket arsenal when it was going cheap. NK would be saving the Nukes for Tokyo and Osaka.

Jedidiah.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[voisine]

Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south.

In their mind, there's just one Korea and the south is occupied by the US. We started it by invading the one true Korea. Their invasion of the south was a civil war. Of course I completely support what we did. Obviously it was the right thing, but the north is not completely off base claiming we invaded *Korea* first, since north and south are both Korea.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of it this way: If there were no oil in Iraq, would we have invaded?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ralphclark]

Well at least you are honest, unlike the others who are taking the same line as you, in that you admit your distrust of the North Koreans is based only on supposition.

The facts speak otherwise though. So far as facts are concerned (and leaving out all name calling), we seem to have agreement that it went something like this:

1. 1992-1994: Clinton wants NK to abandon HWR technology (which can be used to breed weapons material) in favour of LWR, which can't.
2. 1994: Clinton and Carter broker the "Agreed Framework" deal where NK will be given LWR technology, and are provided with food and fuel oil to see them through their energy shortage while the LWR reactors are built.
3. 1996: Republicans win majority in Congress, and block fuel shipments to NK breaking the terms of the deal.
4. Now without fuel assistance, NK resumes their HWR nuclear power program to fulfil domestic energy requirements.
5. 2001/2002: Bush names NK member of "axis of evil" along with Iraq and repeatedly describes NK as an evil regime.
6. 2002/2003: US resolves to invade Iraq, against UN advice and flying in the face of world opinion.
7. 2003-2005: growing evidence of NK nuclear weapons program. (The earliest evidence I can find of a renewed NK weapons program is a missile test near Japan in 1998. The rest of the evidence postdates Bush's "axis of evil" announcement).

I wish you and your partyline-loving buddies would stop occasionally to consider such facts because they are very instructive. It was the US who abandoned the terms of the deal, not NK. This forced NK to resume their old energy program for reasons of domestic energy requirements. It was the US who then named NK an evil regime and then proceeded to demonstrate exactly what they do with evil regimes and exactly how much world opinion matters to them (not a lot).

It is hardly surprising that NK decided it was safest to beef up their deterrent and let the world know it. After all, it appears to have worked because Washington (and the world) knows the US won't invade a country so equipped. What would you have done? Exactly.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[prototypical]

When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead.

Uh, so you're worried about Saudi Arabia, then? I seem to recall that a majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, not Iranian.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[John Harrison]

Luckily their missle tech is such that we can watch them building it and destroy it if needed. However that only works if we know they are going to attack rather than just do another test launch.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Duhavid]

I doubt seriously that China would stand still for the US sending even one missile toward Korea. The possiblity that it might be a first strike meant for China will be on the minds of the Chinese leadership ( and on minds of the leadership of Korea and the US ). Hundreds? No way. Not to mention that nuclear weapons are not super selective or precise ( I am thinking mostly of fallout here... ). No one in the area would stand for it.

Aint gonna happen.

It would have to be troups on the ground and tactical air power ( I.E. no flights of B-52, B1 or B2's ). And even that would have to be carefully done ( crossing ( IIRC ) 38th parallel was the reason for China coming in on the side of the North Koreans on the last go-round ). I am quite sure that China is not well pleased with North Korea just now, but just as the US would be displeased about an attack against any of the NATO countries, even those that opposed the war in Iraq, China will have a hard time sitting on the sidelines if we or South Korea sent troups in. Nor would they like troups stationed in North Korea afterwards, assuming the above could be managed in the first place.

Doubtfull.

And I believe that the leadership of all involved parties understand this well.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[sidmystic]

and a small brain to boot, apprently

Re:Thank Goodness...

[starm_]

"The fact is that if the US didn't try, then nobody would."

Exactly. Why would they want to try something that could provoke countries to send nuclear missles accross the globe? Why would they try something that could lead to a nuclear war and destroy this planet? That is just plain stupid.

The US is playing with fire and when you play with fire you get burnt. I'm afraid the victims might be the human race and life on earth.

Mind you, the "axis of evil" as a member of the global community is acting quite civilized and reasonable considering how the US is threatening them. If the roles were reversed and it was the US being opressed and threatened by the "axis of evil", if Iran would be invading your neighbors and looking at you saying "you might be next", the Nuclear weapons would probably already have been launched and life on earth already crippled.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

Could people please read my entire comments before replying?

I doubt seriously that China would stand still for the US sending even one missile toward Korea.

I was referring to the context of the United States responding to a nuclear attack against an American city. In that context (millions of Americans dead) I don't think China would have very much say in the matter at all.

Not to mention that nuclear weapons are not super selective or precise ( I am thinking mostly of fallout here... )

You don't know much about nuclear weapons do you? Our ICBMs/SLBMs can drop a warhead within a circle about 50 meters across at a range of 8,000 kilometers. Fallout is largely (but not completely) non-existent assuming an airburst strike.

No one in the area would stand for it

Again if North Korea hit us first they wouldn't have any say in the matter -- nor would they even be inclined to stop us (if they even could). Do you really think that Japan or South Korea would advise us not to retaliate if North Korea nuked us?

China will have a hard time sitting on the sidelines if we or South Korea sent troups in. Nor would they like troups stationed in North Korea afterwards, assuming the above could be managed in the first place.

I question if China would want to get involved in a US/NK war. This is not 1950. We are their biggest and most important trading customer. They would doubtless demand (and get) concessions on any number of issues from trade policy to Taiwan policy -- but I don't think they would be gung-ho to intervene and fight a war with the United States over a country that is much of a pain in the ass to them as it is to us.

All of this is a highly moot point because I am not advocating a war with North Korea. If you had read my previous comments you would know that I think engagement is the correct response and I consider them (in the grand scheme of things) less of a threat then other rouge states.

I was merely pointing out why I think them to be less of a threat -- mainly the fact that they are a nation-state and that deterrence and mutually assured destruction still apply.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more

And when fanatical Iranians fly airplanes into American buildings, then I'll start to worry about them.

They are Shias (differens sect of Islam). They have not attacked us. The state of Iran has no association with Al-Qaeda. I'm not happy about them getting nukes - but it's a little bit hypocritical of us to forbid them, seeing as we have them, and we didn't do anything about it when France, China, Israel, and Pakistan got them bomb.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dread_ed]

First, I do not distrust the North Koreans or thir government. I despise them for the way that they treat their people, but distrust does not enter into the equation.

I actually trust them to do what they see fit to ensure that they get what they want as a nation. With their approach people and politics (thuggish at best) it only makes sense for them to seek out the biggest weapons that they can find to prevent others attacking them. In fact, that is just what they have been doing since the early 90's or even before. Chemical and biological weapons were added first, and now nuclear. I find it strange that you think that what the US did would change their long standing propensity for weapons acquisition.

Also you leave out that the terms of the deal for the light water reactors were for North Korea to stop it's production of nuclear weapons. The reason for your #3 is not the "Republicans winning a majority" but the fact that North Korea had a secret, and forbidden according to the deal you are talking about, nuclear weapons development program! The whole reason for the deal was to stop weapons development and yet they continued. Why have a deal in the first place then? It dosen't get much more obvious than that, however, you seem determined to misconstrue and misrepresent the facts and still are trying to blame the US for North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

You seem to miss the point entirely. The reason Clinton engaged in the policy that he did was to stop or delay North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. The whole timeline you discribe is about people trying to stop the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons. At every step along the way they continued with their program. Neither the carrot or the stick worked, and yet you seem to blame the "Republicans" and the US for their actions that were initiated before we were even involved with them.

Also, if you think that they abandoned their research and implementation of nuclear weapons while we were helping them with light water reactors you are incredibly niave. The evidence, and the logic, point elsewhere.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Mr. Underbridge]

Why do you think they were willing to give up the weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact? Engagement is the correct answer to North Korea

First, Kim is nuts. I'm not sure MAD theory still applies to him, but let's hope so. Second, what he wants is attention. He seems to be clamoring for talks - about what, I've no idea - and is going out of his way to advertise this nuke program. I think he suffers from delusions of grandeur and gets off on the possibility of beleving he's the equal of Japan and the US.

So under the engagement idea, we give him exactly what he wants. The question is, is that a good or bad idea? Does the attention appease him, or does it teach him that acting like an ass gets him what he wants? His history tells me the latter, because appeasement/engagement is what we've tried with him so far, and he keeps pulling the old "We're making nukes" card, running on 10 years now.

That said, I agree sabre-rattling is the worst course of action. I think we should develop a plan to tactically destroy his nuclear capability, sit on it, and decide if we want to ignore him, or let him play diplomacy. Take out his nukes only as a last resort.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know as a matter of record the chemical weapons that the US supplied him were useless long before either if the two wars happened. And I guess Iraq had every right to invade the country of Kuwait. You are aware that every time you open your mouth your mind goes on parade, right?
If I was you I would be embarrassed

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

The US intervened based on requests from South Korea and Japan. I'm sure neither of those countries would consider North Korea as acting civilized.

The only reason we offered them fuel was in exchange for them NOT developing nuclear weapons. They developed them anyway. Again, they can't launch them at the US, but South Korea and Japan are in their range. *They* happen to be very concered.

[quote] Mind you, the "axis of evil" as a member of the global community is acting quite civilized... [/quote]

That's the dumbest statement I've seen in awhile.

People like you are the reason the Nazi problem was ignored long enough to become a problem.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the trick is to subscribe to a system of religious zealots who want to see you poor and stupid, as long as you vote for them. And as long as you don't make the Baby Jesus cry by loving someone who has the same naughty parts as you.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[N3WBI3]

They are not socialist, they are communist. State ownership of private industry is far lower in sweeden than in either North Korea or China. All those chinese 'firms' the west does business with are ususally branches of the Chinese governemnt.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Duhavid]

*Could people please read my entire comments before replying?*

I'll try, sorry I missed your previous, but there are limits to how far up the stack people will go.

*I was referring to the context of the United States responding to a nuclear attack against an American city. In that context (millions of Americans dead) I don't think China would have very much say in the matter at all.*

I think China would have a lot to say about it. The warheads would be coming towards them, and they would have nothing but our word ( I am assuming they will not trust that very far, as we would not from them in this circumstance ) that the warheads were aimed at them as a first strike to take them *and* North Korea out ( or, maybe not even North Korea, I would presume that they would have "shot their load" already. ) Would you trust them if the tables were turned? Apply above as needed.

*You don't know much about nuclear weapons do you? Our ICBMs/SLBMs can drop a warhead within a circle about 50 meters across at a range of 8,000 kilometers. Fallout is largely (but not completely) non-existent assuming an airburst strike*

Thanks for the disparagement. It helps me to realize you are the master. :-)

Why would you assume airburst?
How much testing have we done with live ICBM launches? ( Yes, we have done live fire tests with cruise missiles. Will those be what we counter with? )

*I question if China would want to get involved in a US/NK war. This is not 1950. We are their biggest and most important trading customer...*

I dont believe that they feel such a great need to trade with us. I think the US is far more dependant on China in trade terms than the other way around. Also, would trade stop us from getting involved if one of our allies , close to our homeland ( say Canada, or Mexico ), were under threat of nuclear counterattack?

*All of this is a highly moot point because I am not advocating a war with North Korea. If you had read my previous comments you would know that I think engagement is the correct response and I consider them (in the grand scheme of things) less of a threat then other rouge states*

OK. I agree that engagement is the correct response, but I dont know that I agree that they are a lesser threat. It is my belief that the situation surrounding North Korea makes them a considerable threat.

*I was merely pointing out why I think them to be less of a threat -- mainly the fact that they are a nation-state and that deterrence and mutually assured destruction still apply*

I agree that the fact that they are a traditional nation-state removes much of the ability to disavow the actions of it's citizens in the way that Iraq, Iran, et al could claim. I believe that our ability to deter is there, but somewhat limited. They also have much much less to lose than we do, and a leader that does not seem to care what harm his actions bring to his own people.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dr. Bent]

But the inspection in closed and tightly controlled Iraq worked just fine, as we have learned after the invation

Iraq was not a closed society (not closed to weapons inspectors anyway...). Remember that the U.S. had already invaded Iraq in the early 90's and that those inspectors were there by threat of military force...not by the permission of the Iraqi government. The situation in N. Korea is much different.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

And if we had hit NK instead of Iraq you would be saying the same thing just in reverse.

The point is you could care less about the event just another chance to bash Bush.

Roll eyes.....

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ralphclark]

Naivety doesn't enter into it. I don't think anybody (and I include the Clinton adminstration) thought that North Korea's attempts at a nuclear weapons program would cease altogether even under the treaty. But they did expect it to be slowed down while the treaty lasted, as NK would have to do everything in secret. And something is better than nothing. What else could the US have done at the time? Invade?

Obviously, the only effect of the current warlike US policy stance has been to accelerate things and provoke the North Koreans into coming out into the open. I don't see that as a particularly positive development. Have you never heard of detente?

You, like Bush, attempt to divide the world into good nations and evil nations, and prejudging their motivations according to the category they find themselves in. Now that is what I call naive. Global politics isn't like a Western, with black hats and white hats. And if you try to make it into one, as the US govt. seems to be doing, no good can come of it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[N3WBI3]

You mean the war in which china came to the aid of North Korea?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti Americanism will stop when America starts acting like a country people want to like.

Maybe when the USA starts acting like a nation state?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

WMD was a smokescreen. Plain and simple. In two years of occupation, they haven't turned up a single small cache of usable chemical weapons. You can't keep a secret that big that long, especially once Saddam was captured.

Lets play a game
I have to hide 200 2 liter bottles in the state of Texas.
I have 10 years to hide them.

You have 18 months to find them
If you don't find them I can shoot you in the head.

Want to play?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Shakrai]

I think China would have a lot to say about it. The warheads would be coming towards them, and they would have nothing but our word ( I am assuming they will not trust that very far, as we would not from them in this circumstance ) that the warheads were aimed at them as a first strike to take them *and* North Korea out ( or, maybe not even North Korea, I would presume that they would have "shot their load" already. ) Would you trust them if the tables were turned? Apply above as needed.

Again, if we were nuked, I don't think we would care what China thought. And incoming ICBM's have a set trajectory -- i.e: you can tell where the warheads are going to land. We have the technology to detect ICBMs and figure that out -- so do (or did) the Russians. I honestly can't say if the Chinese have it or not -- but I still think that in the case of us responding to a nuclear attack on our soil they wouldn't have much to say about it.

Also, would trade stop us from getting involved if one of our allies , close to our homeland ( say Canada, or Mexico ), were under threat of nuclear counterattack?

If Mexico was taken over by an insane dictator that starved his own people and launched a pre-emptive strike against China I don't think we would stand by them when the missiles started flying.

They also have much much less to lose than we do, and a leader that does not seem to care what harm his actions bring to his own people.

That's the same as with Saddam. But the one thing you can count on is the fact that he probably cares about what happens to him. I don't think he wants to be the ruler of a parking lot anytime soon. That's the difference between Kim Jong il and Osama Bin Ladin. I don't think dying for his cause (if he even has one beyond staying in power) would be Kim's first choice.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"George Bush is oh possibly 85% to blame for both North Korea's and Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves."

You know if you want to spout the party line here on slashdot you could at least put your own spin on it. NK was threatening do devolope Nukes when
CLINTON was president. They have been trying to use it as a bargening chip since the west first got worried.
But don't let the facts get in your way....

Re:Thank Goodness...

[TeraCo]

Lets play a game
I have to hide 200 2 liter bottles in the state of Texas. I have 10 years to hide them.

You have 18 months to find them If you don't find them I can shoot you in the head.

Want to play?

Sure, provided the following is true:
i) It takes very specialised equipment, and scientists to make the stuff in the bottles. And it takes a lot of them. Warehouses full of the stuff.

ii) I win by finding anything at all to do with the manufacture of the bottles, the substance, paperwork to do with same, credible interviews with people saying that the bottles exist.. anything like that.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LilMikey]

You never know - all the hitech weapons systems developed before the first Gulf War seemed to work pretty well.

You mean these people:

On April 7, 1992 Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified before a House Committee stating that, by their independent analyses, the Patriot system had a success rate of below ten percent, and perhaps even a zero success rate. (from Wikipedia)

The same people that knew WMDs were in Iraq? I think I'll have to demand proof over a 'maybe' when it amounts to massive amounts of money or American lives.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

No to all of you. Bush went to war for his personal glory. he wanted to be a great president, to one-up his daddy. As everyone knows, war presidents get great ratings and can push their agendas with impunity. The neocons want empire. All the hawks and multinational capitalists wanted to invade someone, anyone. War has been overdue. Everyone's goals just magically coincided. Message to Iraq: it's nothing personal, just business. As for oil, as anyone who has read the good stuff coming out of the AEI and PNAC knows, oil shortage wars are the future.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to play?
Only if I can bring my 9,9999 buddies along too.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[BeatlesForum.com]

We attack a relatively weak Iraq to draw attention away from the fact that we can't capture Bin Laden,

Sort of like Clinton finally firing some missles over in Iraq to take attention off Monicagate?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you thought the profit would be passed to the consumers. I see. That explains the record low profits reported by oil companies last quarter.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[tupambao]

There is a quote (http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml#31 ) from Mao after the Korean War where he says:

"American imperialists are very arrogant, they are very unreasonable whenever they can get away with it, if they became a little bit reasonable, it was because they had no other choice."

This reminds me of GWB who is such a "decisive leader" that he wont accept constructive critism to his policies. I think it was a mistake to accuse North Korea, Iran, and Iraq of being the "axis of evil" -- and impling that he might take military action to preempt the threat from their weapons of mass destruction...and then actually invading Iraq which didnt have a WMD programme but the other two do. this has effectively pushed North korea and Iran against the wall. They are next!

From the three, I rate North Korea as the most dangerous. They are still technically at war with the UN with a truce that could end anytime. Dear Leader Kim is unpredictable that even the Chinese do not trust him. This is the person the US should have taken out first and not Saddam.

Iranians are nationalists. Any form of outside political influence will be resisted from the moderates and hardliners alike. I personally do not see them as a threat since the government does not threaten its neighbours militarily directly but through proxies, the same methods empoyed by the CIA for decades. Setting up the Shah by the US and Britain taught them a lesson they are not ready to forget.

Iraq was the weakest of them all and definately not a threat. Saddam was powerfull during the Iran-Iraq war but was firmly under the control of western powers. Incidentally, this is when he commited most of the crimes he is now being charged with like the gasing of the Kurds. The 8 year war against Iran had drained its resouces and he disastarously invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was actually formed in 1961 by Britain, though Iraq had already gained independence in 1932. A look at the map and you see why Saddam really wanted Kuwait. His actions were followed by a devastating war and 10 years of sanctions. No wonder he was easy prey for GWB and co.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south."

Read more documents. The North did attack the South, but they were trying to retake it. The only reason there was a divide is because of US medling.

I'd cite the documents, but a friend has the book with the sources in it. Trying to get people educated an all.

"On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the USA. Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south. There's a monument where visitors go to weep over the fallen "heros" of the Korean war. Every evening the government-controlled TV shows a military parade. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-US, anti-west sentiment just waiting to go off."

Swap USA for terrorists and Korean for USA in the above and I agree.

As an aside, did you no that America is second (just) to Iran in religious fundamentalism. That was a few years back, and Irans levels have been dropping, whils US levels have risen.

No wonder the rest of the world is shitting itself.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[tunah]

I hope that wasn't sarcasm... there was a reason they didn't find any nukes. The UN did their job.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead.

I think you mean when Saudis fly airplanes into buildings. If you're concern was about the nationality of the terrorists who commited this atrocity, you shouldn't look towards Iran. None (that I know off) are from Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan and if they are it's no more than one or two.

The rest are Saudis and Egyptians (one of the largest destinations of US foreign aid). I would be very cautious to make suggestions that Iran is supporting terrorists on a state level. Those claims could be leveraged against many nations in the middle east. What about domestic terrorists? Should we make the claim that the US government is sponsoring them. Of course not, and until we see evidence of a connection to Iran let's hold back the ungrounded claims. I'm not suggestion that the parent made those claims, but I KNOW someone is going to in this thread.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

Your article does not mention them being convinced at all.

I meant convinced not to use them on the invading army - e.g.

Q: Why didn't you use your chemical weapons?
Aziz: Well, we didn't think it wise to use them.
Q: Can you tell me in more detail....?
Aziz: That's all I can say. It was not wise to use such kind of weapons in such kind of war, with such an enemy.
Q: Because they had nuclear weapons?
Aziz: You can....... make your own conclusions...

Which I interpreted as that the Iraqis had been told that if they used chemical weapons, the US would go nuclear. If you can convince a country to not use it's non conventional arms against an invasion, they are no longer a deterrent against invasion.

Or you could say the US deterred the Iraqi's deterrent, but that sounds like something out of Dr Strangelove :-)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Duhavid]

*but I still think that in the case of us responding to a nuclear attack on our soil they wouldn't have much to say about it*

I believe that they would understand that we were angry/upset/in a retalitatory mood. I think that their own arsenal would give them plenty to say about it. In such a situation, I would think we would probably send in land/tactical air to inflict our revenge. With lots of reassurances to China that we would not go into their territory/airspace. ( I just reminded myself of that airspace disaster not that long ago... Where one of our recon airplanes and a Chinese interceptor had an all-to-close encounter... If they were willing to play chicken with one of our airplanes, how enthusiastic would they be about our missiles.. )

*If Mexico was taken over by an insane dictator that starved his own people and launched a pre-emptive strike against China I don't think we would stand by them when the missiles started flying*

I dont know that we would be enthused about missiles coming our direction, regardless of provocation/reason. Even if the tragectory indicated that the target was Mexico. Assuming you know the limits of your enemies equipment is a major no-no ( one example, according to the assessment pre Pearl Harbor, there was no way to make torpedoes run in such a way that they did not dive to about 75 feet below the surface. The Japanese figured out how to make it happen. Also, it was fairly well known that dive bombers could not really sink a battleship ( at the time, the main capital ship ), only rearrange the topsides. The Japanese adapted 16" battleship shells so that they could be dropped from horizontal bombers( about 10k feet up ) ( that is what sunk the Arizona, BTW ). Short story long, dont assume too much.. )

*But the one thing you can count on is the fact that he probably cares about what happens to him*

I agree, but he might well have a bunker proof against our attack. Or be in the air. Or on the way to some other place. I think there are many ways this could play out with him at least believing he was safe.

I am thinking perhaps it is time for us to agree to disagree ( that or just disagree. :-)

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

But from the Wikipedia article

It is worth noting that there isn't really enough evidence to determine conclusively the success or failure of Patriot missile interceptions during the Gulf War. It is also worth noting that the Patriot system was originally intended for use primarily against aircraft and cruise missiles - although the original specification called for the ability to intercept short range ballistic missiles, this capability was still being introduced during Operation Desert Storm

I'd guess if you decide you want the system to a intercept low tech ICBMs at design time, you could build a system that works. And even if the patriots were 100% dud, which I doubt, they did give the Israeli goverment more justification for not retaliating and making the Arab members of the UN coalition change sides.

Still, fair point - Patriot performance was certainly not the kind of thing you'd want to bet the country on.

Ok, if you don't like that argument, I thought of another.

Consider a situation where somewhere some dictatorship is rumoured by our somewhat unreliable intelligence services to be considering an pre-emptive attack on the US. They have hardened bunkers threaten to launch if aircraft enter their airspace. You could imagine the US President being put in a situation where a pre-emptive nuclear strike could be a plausible way to remove the threat.

In fact this is like the Cuban missile crisis, except the enemy country is more isolated from the outside world, and has less resources to build weapons, like North Korea.

Now if you have no missile defense, I'd say there is a fair chance that the US would do this.

Later on, we might find out that they didn't have as many missiles as we thought, or they we're only considering a pre-emptive strike for the same reasons we were. The rest of the world believes that the US has killed millions of people for no good reason, and they kind of have a point.

Alternatively, maybe the enemy country has more missiles and is crazier than we thought and decides to launch all the ones left in retaliation. They launch a massive attack on the US.

If you have a missile defense system you only need to attack if you're attacked and it fails to shoot down the missiles. You avoid putting a US President in a prisoners dilema situation.

Imagine Bush in this situation. Do you think he'd listen carefully and make the best decision? Hell even JFK came close to fighting a nuclear war over Cuba that neither he nor the Russians wanted to fight.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Hal_Porter]

No problems, the stuff I write is hardly well thought out either.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Dread_ed]

"You, like Bush, attempt to divide the world into good nations and evil nations

Check http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=nkorea and see just a few articles on who and what North Korea is. I think that it would be silly to say that they are a "good" nation. Furthermore, I think it would be irresponsible to not assign some sort of judgement to them due to their treatment of their populace and their constant manipulation and threats to the governments that are concerned with their power-centric attitudes.

In addition to this I find it interesting that you have twice now imputed attributes to me that I do not posess and have not even intimated in my posts. You called me a "party-liner" and said that I attempt to divide the whole world into good and evil countries, neither of which I do. It seems more like you have an agenda, since you seem to know party lines and Bush polocies so intimately. Makes me wonder what you are really espousing here, and your motivations for attributing this escalation solely to the USA.

As for your theory of acceleration I don't buy it. They have been after nukes continually for over a decade. They probably had them quite a while ago. We probably knew about it too. So does China, probably more than we do.

I would consider their mention of American aggression as the cause for developing nukes a total ruse. Easy to pick a target like the US to justify their militant policies when we are the current global pariah. No better way to try to curry favor with the other countries of the world than to point to the supposed faults of another nation as motivation for your own indescretions. No mention of the gigantic dragon in their back yard (China) that has been breathing down their neck since before Americans could even pronounce Korea? Curious.

Don't fool yourself. Don't lay this at the feet of the USA. We tried diplomacy, we tried financial, humanitarian, and technological aid. Regardless of the situation they continued to do what they wanted in the first place: develop nukes. If we had ignored them completely they would have followed the same course of action.

Funny, if we had tried relaxing political pressure on North Korea I can see you figuratively jumping up and down that the Bush administration did not do more to avert the North Koreans development of nuclear weapons as well. I could be wrong, but I notice that you seem to be more concerned with tying this issue to party politics, and assigning blame, than logically considering the course of action of North Korea.

Face it, what happened with North Korea was inevitable. Also remember that the USA was only 1 of 6 nations involved in multi-national talks with North Korea. We weren't the only people trying to deter them from doing what they did. We also aren't the only nation that they are worried about aggression from. We just make a politically convenient scapegoat.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, just like like any crazed fanatic with a nuclear bomb can obliterate any metropolitan city in an instant. Thats thing about nukes, they are, like guns, the great equilizer. Sure, the US has MORE nukes, but how many nuclear attacks on the US do you really think it would take before the country starts to fall apart? And don't give me any of that "We're strong, we made it through 9/11" bullshit. That was only a few thousand people, which is terrible, don't get me wrong, be is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that could be wiped out by a single nuclear weapon. Still want to compare dick sizes?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[eno2001]

Foe? Why? What'd I do to you?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

A large chunk of that 8.8 billion *is* money from the "oil for food" program since the invasion. (It also doesn't include any of the money handed over by the US -- I'd be interested to see what the unelected Iraqi Provisional Authority has been spending that on).

Give Bush time, he's only had 20 months or so...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[andygrace]

US companies having control of more of the worlds oil != cheap oil products for anyone. Bush is in it for the big companies, to make them more money, and not for the little guy.

This is absolutely correct, in the same way that Microsoft's control of the worlds operating system market != cheap OS for anyone.

Open source energy perhaps???

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

I saw this post : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=138725&cid=116 08155

Hello foe.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sure, because Cuba has been funding global terrorism for decades now.

Dumbass.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[ralphclark]

Check http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=nkorea and see just a few articles on who and what North Korea is. I think that it would be silly to say that they are a "good" nation. Furthermore, I think it would be irresponsible to not assign some sort of judgement to them due to their treatment of their populace and their constant manipulation and threats to the governments that are concerned with their power-centric attitudes.

I won't argue with North Korea's appalling human rights record. But you are still attempting to divide the world into good nations and evil nations and that is not just overly simplistic, but even a recipe for disaster. The realpolitik is that you can't go to war against North Korea; as Bismarck observed, politics is the art of the possible. What Clinton and Carter tried to do in 1994 was perfectly rational under the existing constraints.

GWB doesn't have a good grasp of international politics though - that should be obvious even to you by now - and the neocons who are pulling his strings suffer from such hubris ("you of the reality based community", indeed!) that they think they can just rewrite all the rules. Heh. Well I hate to say it (Godwins law and all) but so did the National Socialist policymakers of late 1930's Germany, and although they nearly got away with it we all know how *that* ended up. I'm not of course suggesting for one minute that Americans are Nazis or anything of the sort, merely that the foreign policy of one ascendant international power with a popular belief in manifest destiny and whose demagogue rulers are guided by people who think politics is both science and philosophy, is going to look pretty much like any other.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[dwillden]

WhoTF said that it is ok for the USA to have nukes but not ok for Iraq, NK or else? And WhoTF asked the USA to enforce this?

It's called the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. Several years ago all the nuke capable countries got together and said, "Hey these things really are not a good idea, and since none of us will agree to disarm, lets at least prohibit the spread of these weapons to any more nations." At the time, the nuke powers were all aiming their wepas at each other (a little thing called the cold war), but those nations did participate in continual diplomatic relations to ensure that said weapons would not be used.

As the US and the UK currently seem to be the only Nuclear powers with the capability and the will to enforce non-proliferation, we will continue to work to get Iran to stop their development. NK is a different animal, we will continue diplomatic methods, which will most likely consist of strongly encourageing China to get involved. While China and NK tend to get along better than NK and anyone else, they are not die hard allies, and China does have influnce and a definate interest in exerting it.

One more thing on Iran, if we can't convince them to stop their developement, we won't have to attack. Israel will not allow any proliferation in that region. They bombed Iraqi reactors in 84 and they will do it again, without hesitation, it is a matter of national survival for them.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[shoemaker251]

Agreed. If China wants to be viewed as the next superpower, they could start with sorting out the mess in their own backyard. To date they have been ineffective. They hosted the 6-party talks, yet did not pressure N. Korea to knock off the nuclear business. China claims it wants a nuke-free Korean peninsula, but did nothing to stop N. Korea from violating agreements and building nukes. Less talk, more results, please.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only 'countrymen' that flew planes into American building were Saudi Arabians... yet we're trying to occupy Iraq.

WTF is your logic, again?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[randallpowell]

I thought that to destroy factories that made nerve gas but really made aspirin then milk. Whatever they made had to be blown up. Monica was cute but he could have asked her to cleanup.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[eno2001]

Ahhh... so you're a war monger. OK. That makes you wholly irrelevant to me then. Thanks for explaining.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[randallpowell]

I blame the speechwriter that had Shrub say Axis of Evil© in the first place. He could have dumped them into a group labeled Pro-Terrorist Regimes and be done. He could throw any nation he doesn't like in it and run with it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Procrastin8er]

I understand what your saying, but if they were able to get the required technology from other sources, why did they bother taking the "dumb down" nuclear technology from the US if it wasn't going to benefit their weapons program?
If the US technology wasn't a benefit, why didn't they asked for crude oil or cash, which they then could have used to purchase the desired technology.
It now seems likely that they used the technology they got from the US along with tehnology from other sources to accelerate their weapons program, I fear this may be one of the US's biggest mistakes, and I am afraid that the next "butting of heads" will again as you say "not work out well" for the Koreans, North and South.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

War mongerer? No. I'm tired of people suggesting that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy or that America deserved it.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Tobias.Davis]

Hey, it's 87 virgins.

You insensitive clod!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[GnarlyNome]

The same limitation might not exist in the minds of Islamic Jihadists who think that martyring themselves against the "Great Satan" gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.

Where is Allah gonna get that many goats?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[bigmammoth]

maybe you should take a look at the The Project for the New American Century.
It states pretty clearly very early on that we are entitled to peruse our capital interests using war. Having a key portion of the worlds energy supply in close alignment with the US government-corporate leadership is a capital interest.

Their are lots of other reasons for invading as well... such as establishing a client state from which you can launch military operation in the region, normalizing relations with the Iraqi markets, and setting an example for other countries that question US hegemony.

Last of which is helping Iraqis which we are certainly trying to do in the sense that a lot of people believe that is what we are doing there, but it was certainly not the first priority for the goverment leadership of the US. It would have been much easier to help Iraqis by not supporting Saddam though the worst of his atrocities or if we not imposed genocidal sanctions against the people of that country, or if we had not lifted the no fly zone to allow Saddam to crush the Iraqis as they rose up against him, etc.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea? Anyway, laugh it up, all the dead soldiers appreciate it.

You are an amazingly stupid person.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're underinformed about Kim. He blew up/hijacked Korean and Japanese airplanes in the 80's for no reason whatsoever. They abducted a number of Japanese people, just because they felt like it. They are not "rational actors" or at least, they are pretending not to be.

You act like religion is the only thing that motivates people to do insane things. But here's the problem: Communism is a religion!

I mean sure, Communism could be just a normal theory if you were to look around and empirically decide that the evidence points to the slow destruction of capitalism and the rise of a communist utopia. But that's not what people do. They look at countries like Stalin's Russia and Kim's Korea and, against all evidence, say, "Oh yeah, these guys are the vanguard of the future." This belief is completely at odds with the evidence. What sustains them is an irrational faith in their leaders and their system. The irrationality of this belief makes Commies at least as dangerous as Mullahs.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush administration wasn't expecting such a massive insurgency, they were expecting the flowers and sweets to be thrown at them, not grenades.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't blame the UN for people smuggling oil out of Iraq. It's like trying to blame the US for people smuggling alcohol during prohibition.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Xyrus]

"When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead."

This statement alone tells me you have bought into the terrorist paranoia.

You are far more likely to die falling down a flight of stairs than die in aterrorist attack. You are far far far more likely to die in a car wreck on your way to work than die in a terrorist attack.

Worried about terrorism are you? You're not worried about the plethora of diseases that are far more likely to kill you? You're not worried about cancer or heart disease? How about being mauled by a bear? Food poisoning? Falling off a ladder?

Do you not think about the fact that you're 8000 times more likely to die falling in your tub? What about slipping on a patch of ice?

However, terrorism is more likely to kill you than a meteor.

Terrorism has been little more than a very effectiove propaganda tool.

With that being said, logically your argument makes no sense.

NK had known stores of plutonium. These have been documented by the IAEA. It is quite likely that NK could have processed this into low grade nuclear weapons.

Now what should I be more worried about? Someone who actually has nuclear weapons and missle technology or some terrorist with a strap-on bomb?

Hmmm.....this is a tough one.

In truth, I'm worried about neither. NK has shown repeatedly that they like to bluster and terrorist...well...let's just say I'm more concerned about slipping on ice.

~X~

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

If China wants to be viewed as the next superpower, they could start with sorting out the mess in their own backyard. To date they have been ineffective.

How effective was US against Israel nuclear program, or against Pakistani program? How effective was US in preventing Pakistan to sell nuclear technology to Libya and Iran (among others)?

Re:Thank Goodness...

[wenchmagnet]

There was no involvement from Iran in 9/11. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

Why dont the Bush grab the Saudis by the scruffs of their necks and shake them till their teeth rattle?

Could it be the OIL?

BTW, Iran's brand of Islam is the "shia" version. The Saudi (Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Osama, IED etc) version is the Wahhabi brand most promoted by Saudi Arabia.

Even the religious schools [madarsahhs] running all over the region who brainwash and prepare suicide bombers are funded by the Wahabbis who also happen to hate Iran as they think of "shias" as infidels.

Really, Iran is NOT friendly towards Al-Qaeda!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[phumin]

both countries are worse

Re:Thank Goodness...

[eno2001]

I didn't think we "deserved" it necessarily. Sure we've done some really horrible things around the globe, but that's a different story. However, I'm tired of people trying to connect 9/11, Saddam and Iraq. There is NO connection.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

No one is connecting Iraq to 9/11.

In any case, I still fail to see how your comment about 9/11 makes any sense at all.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[randalx]

Wish I had some mod points. You just nailed it on the head.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[LilMikey]

I don't think we're disagreeing on the point you're making. A missile defense shield would be excellent. It would be well worth the money spent on it.

The problem is we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a system that by almost all accounts doesn't provide any defense. The correct thing to do is invest in research and development so we can build a real working missile defense system and eliminate most of the 'fails to shoot down the missiles' part. Investing in light water reactors and placating the would be nuclear powers is a cheaper way of buying time until we can develop the systems.

What has happened is we went and pissed of the world, called a bunch of people a lot of bad things and now the threat of nukes on our back porch is a reality long before our defenses are ready. We're pumping out a broken missile defense system long before it's usable as part of our bluff. That money could have been better spent and our foreign policy better judged.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[HiThere]

It would be quite a bit worse than that. If we move fighting troops into N.Korea, we're putting them on the border of China. And China wouldn't like that at all...we don't have a very good reputation.

For that matter, ignore the reputation, and consider how we reacted when Russian troops and equipment moved *peacefully* into Cuba. Nearly exit one world is how we reacted.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Very nice post.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq was disarmed just in time!

More like: Iraq was dis-oiled, dis-moneyed and dis-peopled just in time!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[mink]

Back around 9/11/01 it was 72 virgins.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[eno2001]

My point is that we DON'T know for certain who pulled off 9/11. Osama and his organization claimed they did it. Maybe they did. But Al Queda aren't Iraqis, they are from many different countries and nationalities. There are also too many things that point to prior knowledge of the incident that was given to people on a need to know basis. Most of those people being important key figures in business and politics. Again, this could be coincidence.

It's just as easy to believe that Osama did it. Considering that we were supposed to "smoke 'em out" I think we still have a job to do and we're ignoring it. It is appalling that so many people think that our invasion of Iraq was done in the name of fighting terrorism (whatever the definition of that may be today). You didn't say this, but a lot of other people believe it and I will be frank by saying they are at best, idiots.

When 9/11 happened, I was behind the idea of finding those responsible for planning and funding the attack. But as history has shown over and over, it is way too easy to use evets like that to demonize the "enemy" of the day. The poor pagans suffered at the hands of the Catholics by being portrayed as worshippers of the devil himself. Today is no different. The devil has been replaced with "evil doers" and Osama and Saddam linked because they are described as such.

I want to see people who actually do bad things pay for their misdeeds. Most of the Iraqis who have died so far are not those people. Most of the people who were bombed in Afghanistan after 9/11 were not those people. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and the rest of G.W. Bush's crew ARE those people. They've done far more harm to U.S. citizens than the guys who flew those planes into the twin towers did.

Think about all the young American men they sent over to Iraq to be slaughtered in an invasion that should have never happened. And for what? We capture the guy who Bush I put into power there in the first place, destroy many cities that innocent people were happy to call home, and kill tons of civilians. There's some "evil doings". Keep in mind, that I don't blame the troops 100%. They're just doing their job, in many cases under duress. I blame the administration for all of those negative outcomes. I also blame them for the predatory practices of their business friends who see money making opportunities in rebuiding Iraq. Why don't I come over to your house, tear it to the ground because the bank that holds your mortgage is "evil" and then send a few contractor friends of mine to come build you a new one that costs even more than what you had before just to iverate you fro the evil bank?

The ONLY reason Iraq happened is that the administration was able to convince most idiot Americans that Saddam was tied into that nebulous bogey man: terrorism. The only reason he got re-elected was because he convinced the same mouthbreathers that he stands up for good christian values. Ha! From what I see the only good christian value is to murder anyone you don't agree with and find a way to make money off of it.

Whatever. I hate politics. I hate what America and most Americans have become, and I have no problem telling everyone that. I'm proud to be "un-American" because it really is the only way to truly be patriotic these days. This country had decent people in it once. Now it's just a bully that is the butt of jokes for the rest of the world and also a threat to world security.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Guppy06]

For the same reasons you don't see much talk in the US about annexing (any more of) Mexico. Sure, few in the US would mind carving 10 states and a few more funky commonwealth thingies out of Canada, but Mexico has lots of Mexicans and little money in comparison.

Tibet and Taiwan are actually worth something to Beijing. DPRK is fully of "dirty Koreans" (think "dirty Mexicans") and the only interest of China's there is pissing off Washington. China knows exactly what happens to the thousands of North Koreans they send back across the border (concentration camps, etc.) but you don't see many tears being shed by them, let alone talk of discontinuing their policy of forced repatriation.

(Note: opinions of Mexico and its inhabitants are those held by the average US citizen and not necesiarly my own.)

Re:Thank Goodness...

[Guppy06]

""You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"

We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program?"

Yes, because North Korea has done nothing wrong beyond owning nuclear weapons.

The lesson the world learned from World War II is that it's OK to set up muder factories to slaughter civillians so long as its your own civillians and not your neighbors. DPRK, like many others, have taken this lesson to heart and therefore are in the clear so long as it's not South Koreans or Japanese they're shipping off to their death camps.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

Wow, you're an angry individual. :)

Iraq was not a threat to America and we've made ourselves look really bad in the world of public opinion. However, if we can leave Iraq better then when we've came, then 10-20 years down the road we can look back and call it a success... not by the standards the we expected it to be when we started, but by the fact that the Iraqi's are a self-governing people, ruling themselves as they see fit.

What is lost in the Iraqi war are the Iraqi people. Both sides want to use the Iraqi people to promote their cause, whether it's GW or Moore. You see, the Iraqi's people WANTED to be free of Saddam. They are scared that we won't ever leave, which isn't entirely unfounded, heh. So, it's more like 'Sorry we invaded your country, let us make it up to you.' If we can actually give the Iraqi's a chance to govern themselves, then we'll have succeeded for them, if not for ourselves.

Also, keep in mind that Europe is the same region to let Hilter fester until he started WWII. The Spanish Inquisistion didn't happen in the US, either. Oh, and we didn't promise muslim tribes the land of Israel if they helped fight Nazi Germany. That was all Europe.

So, while Europe likes to play the pompous act, don't let it bother you. They've always been hypocritical and self-serving. While everyone likes to point out that America assisted Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war, you'll note that they weren't driving American tanks fighting us. They had Russian equipment. Saddam wasn't stealing his country's oil for sale the US, that was his deal with the French.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[eno2001]

Angry? Nah... Just annoyed with idiots everywhere. They seem to be multiplying. It's disturbing.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[jarnhestur]

Ha... Well said. I fully agree with that!

Re:Thank Goodness...

[slasar]

"I can even see individuals with great wealth and/or political power with their own personal arsenal. Those that acquire them will do so for their own reasons and motivations and efforts to stop them will most likely prove fruitless."

B Gates V J Bond...

Re:Thank Goodness...

[runderwo]

Oh, we got more oil after we invaded Iraq. I see. That explains these wonderfully low gasoline costs!

Gasoline prices at the pump have far more to do with refinery capacity and price fixing than they have to do with the price of a barrel of crude at the moment.

Re:Thank Goodness...

[mforbes]

We've gone from my original joke to a more serious discussion, so I'll respond in that vein.

I've wondered recently if the "at the pump" prices have more to do with the futures market (and the psychological factors that accompany various news events such as the Exxon Valdez) than the actual current barrel prices. It would seem to make more sense from this point, as the "at the pump" prices don't seem to logically follow refinery capacity or reserve capacity very closely.

Not Surprising

[Adrilla]

We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.

Re:Not Surprising

[lucabrasi999]

We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.

Seeing as Kim Jong Il has more than a few symptoms of mental illness, I would say that: Yes, we should be more worried now that they have admitted it.

Re:Not Surprising

[Adrilla]

I do worry about that as well.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as Kim Jong Il has more than a few symptoms of mental illness, I would say that: Yes, we should be more worried now that they have admitted it.

Because Reagan was sane too ... yet I'm not living in a cave in the middle of a nuclear winter at the moment!

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder NK turned down buying nuclear reactors from certain members of the bush administration during the o so far away clinton years.

Re:Not Surprising

[mirko]

Admitted ?
Can someone point me to the article they actually published on their Press Agency web site ?

I don't see such an announcement, at least not dated from today.
Here's the only announcement which contains the word "nuclear" :

The U.S. has talked much about the "six-way talks" over the "nuclear issue," asserting that "it has no intention to invade the north", but it is aimed to cover up its aggressive nature, he noted, warning that one should not be taken in by such trick of the U.S.
The anti-Americanism of the south Korean people has gained momentum in the wake of the June 15 joint declaration, he said. He expressed the conviction that the mindset of the south Korean people following leader Kim Jong Il and supporting his Songun policy will grow stronger as the days go by and national reunification will come true thanks to this policy.

So, I just wonder whether it's not in the news because CNN of Fox put it there : Iraq and Tunamis just stopped selling.
They need a new fresher war to sell more pictures.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you are. If it wasn't for those scientists inventing Virtual Reality just in time, you'd hate it.

Re:Not Surprising

[JavaLord]

And we shouldn't worry that the US has more nuclear bombs than any other country?

Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'.

We shouldn't worry that Bush commands them?

Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.

Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.

North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case he's not the only world leader with the finger on the button who's a few chimps short of a tea party.

Re:Not Surprising

[ari_j]

Russia may have more in numbers (something I don't know the veracity of but will accept for the sake of argument), but the US has more over nuclear power. The best part is several of the states, particularly North Dakota and probably Utah and Colorado as well, are home to enough missile silos that any one of them seceding from the Union would become the world's third-strongest nuclear nation. Of course, the US wouldn't exactly hand over the launch codes to a seceding state, so that's kind of irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless. ;)

Re:Not Surprising

[thedustbustr]

as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.

I hope you aren't conservative!

Re:Not Surprising

[Brando_Calrisean]

...to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace...

You mean for its Army. Based on the little information that gets out of North Korea, one thing that is clear is that the food and money channeled into the country as foreign aid is NOT going towards its starving populace - Kim Jong Il has redirected these supplies and funds towards the country's military forces, and a significant portion of it ends up on the black market.

Re:Not Surprising

[johnjay]

That's my question as well. What does this give NK that they didn't have before? They were already holding SK and Japan hostage with the threat of possible nuclear capability. Now the threat is confirmed nuclear capability. What do they get out of this? It seems that they just made themselves more of a target. No WMD questions here. They've got 'em and they're saying they've got 'em.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.

when the people you are talking/reasoning to continue to hurl insults in public at you ? do you tell them to come back when they have calmed down a bit (at least publicly) ?

the North Korean foreign ministry issued a statement saying that it had suspended participation in talks for "an indefinite period" after scrutinising George W Bush's inaugural and state of the union speeches.
Telegraph 10/02/2005

i wonder what bushie could of said that pissed them off ?

Re:Not Surprising

[raddan]

We all knew this already, but I wonder if we should worry more now that they've admitted it.

Maybe they finally got around to watching Dr. Strangelove.

Strangelove: Yes, but the... whole point of the doomsday machine... is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Bush II, huh?! Everyone you don't like is 'crazy'.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of US warheads and their locations have been drastically reduced in recent years.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/26/nuclear.states/

Georgia and Washington state have twice as many as N. Dakota due the boomer bases. N. Dakota barely breaks the top 5.

Re:Not Surprising

[utlemming]

The statement on having nuclear weapons is a lot more sublte than people think. You have to remember that NK is the last traditional, isolationist communist country left. NK still thinks that the Cold War is still on. The parallels between the struggle with the USSR and then NK are extremely erie. NK is an isolationist country. Since they only rely on the rest of the world for foriegn aid, they have little incentive to play nice. By telling the world that they have nuclear weapons is more of a statement to their people that they have them. The US has know for a while -- as well as the rest of the world. All information in NK is controlled via the state. And it is also important to know that Kim Jong, the current leader's father is considered by many to be a god. So there is a little religious ferbor in the equation. NK is far more dangerous than Iraq -- NK has very little to loose by getting into a nuclear engagment. Sanctions, etc., will do very little, since they are so isolantionist. Several political scientist have stated that the next world war will come that part of Asia -- either China or NK will do something that will provoke the rest of the world. All NK has to do is do something to provoke the US into landing troops in Tiawan (ie nuking Tiawan). Then with US military involvment in the region, China can get very nerveous and end up in a first-class world power confrontation. The reason the US is nerveous about NK and nuclear weapons is rooted in the fear of a nuclear event in Asia becoming the catalyst for a major war. Even though we are on good "terms" with China in terms of trade, there are cultural and political differences which span the benefits of trade. Tiawan is one of those issues. The who point of this post is that the situation is far more complex than we think. The US wants nuclear weapons out of the region to prevent the instability that it can cause.

Re:Not Surprising

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

You know its the private social security savings accounts plan that pissed them off...

Re:Not Surprising

[electroniceric]

North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat.

I think the reasons are somewhat more opaque than this. My feeling is that is has something to do with China. China pretty much dominates Asia these days, and they supply N. Korea w/ most of its fuel oil and if I'm not mistaken, food as well. In other words, China could pull the plug on a lot of this nonsense, and is certainly in the best position of anybody to take him out - though I believe Beijing is in range of some of his missiles. But I think China is comfortable enough with the leash they have him on, so they're just as happy to have him distract and tie down the US with plausible threats, while they continue to sew up Asia and explore eastward for oil and other goodies.

The other factor that makes the situation opaque is that Kim Jong Il is pretty close to insane - like comic book character insane, so you can't do the usual reverse engineering of geopolitical strategy to get an idea of what his game is.

This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years.

While I think we've made a big mess in the Middle East bigger in most places and smaller in a few, I believe you are indeed correct - this is not really about Iraq at all. As an aside, I do think we can improve our batting average in the Middle East if we're a) willing to be a little more circumspect and pay more attention to attitudes on the ground than Bush has been so far, and b) willing to really commit aid money, technical assistance and troops over the time scale of decades, not years. A lot of these world hotspots had their development woes magnified by being proxy states in the US-Soviet conflict and then being utterly abandoned. Undoing these kind of festering problems takes a long, long time.

That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.

It's a global chessboard..ain't politics grand? ;)

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please.

In the last several years the US has showed the rest of the world that it can easily invade any country that it pleases based on fake premises, even if that decision is not aproved by the UN security counsil (if you do not remember, Bush told them before invading Iraq that he really doesn't give a shit about what they think).

Now, I am not in support of dictatorships like the one led by Saddam Husein or Kim Jong, but lets be honest about this: no WMDs were found in Iraq. The entire premise of the war which was sold to the citizens of this country and to the rest of the world was completely incorrect. Did Bush at any time apologize to the citizens of this country or to the rest of the world about this? Did he say, I am sorry, we made a mistake? I do not remember, and if he had, I sure would remember it.

What is the alternative of a hostile regime such as North Korea in this current position? Of course they have to develop WMDs right now, they need them right now, because they do not have the military power to withstand an invasion of the US. N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).

My 3c.

Re:Not Surprising

[ari_j]

Interesting. Note that New Mexico ranks No. 1 by virtue of the warheads stored at the Kirtland Underground Munitions Storage Complex at Kirtland Air Force Base. These include about 1,400 retired ICBM and short-range attack missile warheads awaiting dismantlement. ... meaning that half of NM's are in storage awaiting dismantlement, whereas most of ND's are in silos awaiting launch. But obviously they've shifted them around a bit - damn pork-barrel spending, if you ask me. ;)

Re:Not Surprising

[Vince Mo'aluka]

He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone.

The Bush administration has already demonstrated their willingness to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for political gain. The only thing holding them back is the guaranteed backlash from the American public. When 100,000 innocent deaths occur slowly but steadily over a period of months or years, they can be easily covered up or spun off as "colateral damage". If 100,000 innocents were to die in one sudden instant, the sheep might just wake up and take notice.

Re:Not Surprising

[johnjay]

Thanks for doing the analysis that I was unprepared to do.
You have a good point that the announcement may be news for the NK people moreso than for the US. It could be considered further substantiation of the rumors that are circulating about the imminent collapse of NK (I know, these rumors seem to arrise in cycles...). So the announcement may be more for the purpose of retaining power over the NK people, either through fear, adulation or reassurance of defensive capability against the evil US.
Your theory about a possible attack on Taiwan is frightening; it makes me consider the China-NK relationship in a whole new light. I can see some similarity between the US-NK-China relationship and the US-Palestine-Saudi Arabia relationship. In both cases, the clear and present danger of the middle-man takes the focus off of the larger strategic danger in the region. The US has to enter into strategically disadvantageous relationships with the third country in order to solve the problem of the middle-man. And the third country, of course, has every incentive to see that the problem is never adequately resolved.

Re:Not Surprising

[Kosi]

He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone.

That does not make all his other "evil" deeds undone. And I am sure that the only reason he has not done it yet is that this is the one thing he won't come through with.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

In the last several years the US has showed the rest of the world that it can easily invade any country that it pleases based on fake premises, even if that decision is not aproved by the UN security counsil (if you do not remember, Bush told them before invading Iraq that he really doesn't give a shit about what they think).

Should he? Try looking at it from Bush's point of view. France and Russia both voted against the US war in Iraq because they had a sweet oil for food scam going on with Sadaam (especially the french).

Russia voted against the US despite warning the US that Sadaam was planning to attack the united states. If you believe the premises were false, then what do you think Bush's motivation was?

Now, I am not in support of dictatorships like the one led by Saddam Husein or Kim Jong,

That is good to hear.

but lets be honest about this: no WMDs were found in Iraq. The entire premise of the war which was sold to the citizens of this country and to the rest of the world was completely incorrect.

Do you think Sadaam didn't have them? Seriously, he did in the 80's (we gave them to him). The question is...where did they go? I'm sure he didn't use them all on the Kurds and the Iranians.

Did Bush at any time apologize to the citizens of this country or to the rest of the world about this? Did he say, I am sorry, we made a mistake? I do not remember, and if he had, I sure would remember it.

What is he going to say? "Oh hey sorry, we didn't find the WMD's". My bad. Iraq was in violation of the UN agreement, the UN didn't act because the UN is corrupt, so Bush *DID* act in the best interest of the American people.

What is the alternative of a hostile regime such as North Korea in this current position? Of course they have to develop WMDs right now, they need them right now, because they do not have the military power to withstand an invasion of the US.

They would have developed them regardless of our policy in the middle east. They were developing them before the axis of evil comment. North Korea has plenty of reasons to develop nuclear weapons that have *NOTHING* to do with President Bush or what the US is doing in the middle east. To try to blame it on Bush is simply misguided.

N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).

The US wasn't going to invade North Korea WMD or no WMD.

Re:Not Surprising

[arodland]

Maybe the US's hippocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.

Do you mean to imply that the US is ruled by horses?

Re:Not Surprising

[oliverthered]

"Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'. "

How many working bombs does it have left?

"Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state."

That's what North Korea are hinting at too.

"North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things. "

The US is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more money for it's fat populace and to ensure that communism is no threat. This has little to do with the policies in the middle east over the past few years. That may be US's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.

Ssh.. you don't really want to give him any ideas.

Re:Not Surprising

[mirko]

How the Hell is this overrated ?
I gave a link to the official Korean Press Agency, for God's sake !

Re:Not Surprising

[frankie]

He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone

DoD's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review document calls for the creation of tactical nukes deployed on the battlefield, and for war plans that include US nuclear first strike. Also, Bush officials have made public statements that implicitly disavow Resolution 984, in which nuclear-armed nations pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations.

Furthermore, we've seen what happens to evil dictators who DON'T have nukes.

Last, the US currently doesn't have enough available troops to conquer North Korea by conventional means. So what can we conclude?

Even if he were sane, which he probably isn't, Kim Jong Il would have good reason to believe the US might just bomb him no matter what he does. Therefore, that's a strong incentive to build nukes.

When two nutjobs play chicken together, the result is a huge wreck.

Re:Not Surprising

[utlemming]

I am not sure that I would say that NK plans on attacking Tiawan, but it is still a leveraging piece. The United States is committed to protecting two countries by treaty -- Tiawan and Japan. The United States is involved in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Between the two the US military is stretched. Given a problem in east Asia, the US could have some serious issues. NK probably recognizes the overstretched military and feels that it can leverage the US into getting what it wants by making threats. The US isn't so much in a position to attack, and the NK isn't in a position to defend. But NK doesn't have the inhibition to throw a nuke or two around. The US has everything to lose by throwing a nuke their way. NK is trying to blackmail the US into doing what it wants, while at the same time failing to live up to promises.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

(relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).

#1 it won't be right away, because gwb wants to go after iran next
#2 it's called the draft, buddy

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

DoD's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review document calls for the creation of tactical nukes deployed on the battlefield, and for war plans that include US nuclear first strike

The military and the DoD war plan for EVERYTHING. That is their job. They have a war plan for invading Canada. They probably have a war plan for invading antartica and liberating penguins who are being oppressed by polar bears.

. Also, Bush officials have made public statements that implicitly disavow Resolution 984, in which nuclear-armed nations pledge not to use nukes against non-nuclear nations.

This probably has to do with state sponsors of terrorism. Lets put Iran in this roll (Yeah they will be nuclear soon, and no I'm not saying that they would do this..) if Iran would sponsor a terrorist smallpox attack in multiple locations in the US which kills 1 million people, a US nuclear response is on the table.

Furthermore, we've seen what happens to evil dictators who DON'T have nukes.

KJI and NK were developing nukes and testing missles over japan back in 1997-1998. This wasn't a reaction to the Iraq situation.

Last, the US currently doesn't have enough available troops to conquer North Korea by conventional means. So what can we conclude?

The US could invade North Korea if she were not over extended in Iraq and Afghanastan. North Korea started building nukes and the missles to deploy them before Bush was even president. Iraq was not a consideration in Kim Jong Il's thinking.

Even if he were sane, which he probably isn't, Kim Jong Il would have good reason to believe the US might just bomb him no matter what he does. Therefore, that's a strong incentive to build nukes.

I disagree, his incentive to build nukes is simply to get more foreign aid for his country and to be a 'player' in the world scene. When push comes to shove, countries with nukes have a lot more say than countries without them. I believe that was Kim Jong Il's motivation, not fear of some non-existant pre-emptive attack back in 1997.

Re:Not Surprising

[espo812]

Yet more reason for Strategic Missile Defense.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

How many working bombs does it have left?

More than the US. I googled it earlier, but I don't feel like looking it up again. You will have to forgive me, I'm a fat American and it's hard to type so much with my pudgy fingers. Maybe you could do the work? Oh wait, you are probably a socialist, so you don't like doing work. :)

"That's what North Korea are hinting at too.

Of course they are, did you think they would build it and hint at not dropping it?

The US is just running this scam

What scam exactly is the US running?

for all it's worth to get more money for it's fat populace

It looks like someone has fat envy.

and to ensure that communism is no threat.

It's not, the biggest communist threats to the US are Barbra Boxer and Hillary Clinton.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor point, but I believe that the Bush bashing is radical, rather than reactionary in origin. But the fact that it comes from the 'old' left makes it reactionary again. Ain't the English language terrible?

Re:Not Surprising

[natedgreat]

Finally someone who understands politics and what is really going on...

Re:Not Surprising

[10Ghz]

Do you think Sadaam didn't have them? Seriously, he did in the 80's (we gave them to him). The question is...where did they go? I'm sure he didn't use them all on the Kurds and the Iranians.

Destroyed by the weapons-inspectors? The did destroy quite large amounts of WMD's.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you aren't conservative!

I'm closest to being Paleoconservative.

Re:Not Surprising

[servognome]

N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).
The problem is that it is not just a US vs N. Korea thing, its also a N vs S korea, and a N. Korea vs Japan thing. Citizens of those other countries which have high levels of hostility are threatened as well. Do you tell the people of Japan that N. Korea has a right to nuclear weapons which they can use against you.

Re:Not Surprising

[Carewolf]

Of course he does. Think about it - and who controls the horses?
The cowboys do..
Surprisingly meaningfull for a random analogy.

Re:Not Surprising

[oliverthered]

"More than the US"
ok, but how many of them work, you have to maintain NUKES or they degrade, the US have been activly maintaining them, has Russia?

"Of course they are, did you think they would build it and hint at not dropping it? "

What's the point of the original comment? It every country that has nukes says the same thing so the comment the original comment was pointless except to be prejudice.

"What scam exactly is the US running? "
You obviously live in the US or you would have noticed all the scams they run, RIAA, Patents, the international bank,invading more countries than any other nation (though the UK and China come a close second) etc... does Nike still make shoes in sweatshops? does wall-mart have appalling working conditions, did the US appoint the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments and setup pro-US policies?

"It looks like someone has fat envy. "
I'll give you a race, then we'll see who's envious, just wait till the joints start going, your heart start to pack in and you get diabetes.

"It's not, the biggest communist threats to the US are Barbra Boxer and Hillary Clinton. "

I think the biggest communist threat to the US is Bush. and never underestimate what you don't understate, wait till you up to you fat necks in legal battles and patents, and the oil starts running dry then come crawling in your wheel chairs asking the rest of the world to help you.

Re:Not Surprising

[oliverthered]

isn't that like palaeontology but used for keeping dinosaur conservative alive?

Re:Not Surprising

[Suicyco]

While I agree in general, I think you are mistaken if you believe the US can simply invade anybody it wants. I can invade thirst world nations already destroyed by war, sure, but NK? Iran? No way in hell could it succeed. The US is not as mighty as you would imagine.

We will invade when it suits our economic interests to do so. It has nothing to do with imperialism, war mongering, etc. The population may believe so, even support such as stance, but its not the truth. The truth is, the US uses war as a tantalizing TV show to entertain and distract the masses. If it has a side effect of making our oil supply a little more secure, so be it. It has nothing to do with freeing people, or human rights, in any way. NK is not an economic threat to the US, and if it were, we surely would/could not invade them. Look at how much trouble we have in Iraq, a thoroughly destroyed country. NK is a relatively modern advanced nation with a LOT more people. We simply do not have an army large enoughy, equiped enough or smart enough to do such as thing.

There is no such thing as a modern nation capable of decisive military action against another modern nation (without WMD's). Hence nuclear weapons.

Re:Not Surprising

[STrinity]

DoD's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review document calls for the creation of tactical nukes deployed on the battlefield, and for war plans that include US nuclear first strike.

That's hardly anything new. Back in the Cold War, when we thought the Soviet army was actually good and had an advantage in manpower, US policy was to go nuclear in the event of a conventional invasion of NATO.

Re:Not Surprising

[NCFlipper]

"Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state. "

Who, exactly, would he have dropped "the bomb" on post 9/11? You're thinking Osama, perhaps. Fine: where is he? I doubt that anyone could have condoned carpet-bombing Afganistan with nukes on the basis that one might kill a guy who possibly lives there.

North Korea is different. The country is a nuclear power, and the leader of the country makes boasts that the nukes might be used to defend itself from the US. The situation is much simpler than post 9/11, since the "enemy" is known and has a definite location.

Like you, I still don't think the US would be so stupid as to attempt to bomb NK. But your arguments don't make sense.

Re:Not Surprising

[frankie]

Nuclear first strike plans targeted at weaker nations, who might not have nukes and/or long range missiles, is a new policy.

Calling for "mini nukes" to be included as a standard munition , not just as in a thought experiment but as in "we should do this", is also a new policy.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Invade Russia? Wow...sounds bad....

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that like palaeontology but used for keeping dinosaur conservative alive?

No it's actually used for keeping the ideas this country was founded on alive.

Re:Not Surprising

[johnjay]

[Bush is] not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone.

From one perspective, North Korea is a more likely nuclear target than anywhere else in the world. It's vast arsenal is aimed at Seoul, the rest of South Korea, and Japan. One of the primary reasons that the US can't simply invade NK like we did Iraq is that North Korea will respond by killing millions of South Korean's and Japanese. It is an impossible political problem. We can't start a war that results in the sacrificial death of millions of civilians of our allies.
The only way to fight a war of on our initiative with North Korea is to take out all of their arsenal at once. It seems that the size of the task is so great that we would have to use nuclear weapons if only for the reason that we wouldn't possess enough conventional explosives to do the job.
Of course, once you've developed the senario that far, you have to think about what China and Russia would have to say about a bunch of ICBMs being aimed right next door. Their objections/suspicions/possible nuclear reaction would seem to negate the idea that nukes could be used in the first place. And so the problem remains unsolvable.

Re:Not Surprising

[oliverthered]

"ideas this country was founded on alive."

I'm glad to see you still actively support the ideas of Native American Indians, or was I correct the first time in thinking you supported the ideas of the genocidal people who wiped them out?

Re:Not Surprising

[Inthewire]

The indians founded this country?

I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[bigtallmofo]

Replace "admits" with "brags" and then further replace "brags" with "bluffs" and then it might be a little more true.

This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[nearlygod]

By "proof", do you mean "mushroom cloud"?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[lucabrasi999]

we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.

While your statement is true overall, I don't think it is true in the context of nuclear weapons. Everyone already knows that North Korea has more than a few nuclear warheads. In this case, by announcing that he has them, Kim Jong Il is playing a deadly game of chicken.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[tomhudson]

No, they've got them. Or have you forgotten that one of the arguments in favour of invading Iraq was to do a bit of sabre-rattling to show them that the US was ready to back up words with force.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[bigtallmofo]

No, I certainly wouldn't have meant anything quite so inflamatory (no pun intended). What I meant is that we shouldn't exercise any knee-jerk reactions in our diplomatic attempts. We should recognize what this "admission" is; an attempt to get the upper hand in negotiations and to use the threat of WMD to get what you want. Do we want to encourage future states to do the same thing?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea has been "admitting" to having nuclear weapons for about 12 years.

Can anybody explain that phenomenon, where people assume that anything George W. Bush says must be a lie -- but the same people are perfectly willing to take a power-crazed lunatic dictator at his word?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Enoch Root]

What does it matter if it's true or not? Kim Jong Il admitting to having WMDs is already more proof than was necessary to invade Irak...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ezavada]

Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response. Especially since they have expressed a desire to remake the world in their image, and have used military force to do so in the past -- I'm sure that's what the North Koreans are thinking when they look at the US. And of course that's what the US is thinking as is looks at North Korea. I doubt this will be an easy one to resolve.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point is that we've already seen a mushroom cloud over North Korea a few months ago.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[EiZei]

Even western intelligence agencies say that he has at least few working nuclear warheads. What more evidence do you need?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Moby Cock]

Interesting that your American (or at least Western) view is that the President is, of course, telling the truth and the Asian is a lunatic. This despite documented evidence of blatant and persistent lies from the president and his senior officials. The Asian dictator is routinely portrayed as a lunatic in th western media but they offer little in the way of evidence. It is almost always stated as a fait accompli.

i.e. "Officials under the mad Kim Jong Il have admitted that the nation has nuclear weopons"

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[KarmaMB84]

and the (now known to be false) orders for Iraqi troops to use WMD on invading troops wasn't enough at the time?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[*weasel]

'Everyone already knew' that Saddam had WMDs too.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not too eager to put put too much stock into what 'everyone' in the world community 'knows'.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Roached]

Actually, the US has suspected North Korea had at least a few nuclear weapons for quite awhile (unofficially, kind of like Israel), so I would just interpret this as an official confirmation.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Enoch Root]

You forget to say this bit of, well, "Pentagon PR" came around *after* US troops had crossed the border into Irak.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

This despite documented evidence of blatant and persistent lies from the president and his senior officials.

False. The Bush Administration has been accused of telling countless "lies". In fact, not a single lie has ever been demonstrated.

A "lie" is when you say something you know to be false. There are no examples of this occurring under the Bush Administration.

Sure, they have said things based on the best information they had, which turn out later not to be true. That's not a lie. Learn the difference.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[lucabrasi999]

'Everyone already knew' that Saddam had WMDs too.

Actually, only one group of people 'knew' that Saddam had WMD's. And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House. Remember, Colin Powell had to testify before the UN on the 'proof' of the WMD's, and the UN still didn't buy into the 'proof'.

In the case of North Korea, I imagine if, last year, you asked any Intelligence Agency in the world about North Korea and nukes, you would have received a positive response.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[JavaLord]

Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.

Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ezavada]

t'd be real easy to resolve. Let the fuckers nuke each other. The U.S. can take out Asia, the Krazy Koreans can take out the western seaboard. If they can hit Texas, an awful lot of problems would be resolved.

I'm afraid the real problem is in Washington, and I live a bit too close to there to feel comfortable with that "solution".

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Moby Cock]

Ignore the man behind the curtain!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[skarphace]

I'm pretty sure they were just hoping for joy that this would happen. I bet W and Rummy had a pretty happening party once they heard this.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because that worked out oh-so-well for everyone during the Cuban missle crisis.

Addressing the reasons why large parts of the world are hostile to us might be a good place to start. Or maybe even trying for a second to comprehend that maybe there's a reason they're pissed at us. The current administration sure as hell hasn't helped international apprehension and mistrust of the west.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, get off your high horse. It's so good to see that you are so willing to ignore two important facts:

1. Iraq DID have WMD that it used on its own people.

2. Weapons inspections over a decade or more supported by the Clinton administration and the UN turned up ultimately nothing because of how they were so ineptly and incompetently conducted. It's like the DEA calling a drug dealer and saying, "Hello Mr. Drug Dealer. We're coming over next month to look for drugs in your house." Then when they get to the house, a guy at the door says, "Sorry, you can't come in. Come back next week." So the DEA leaves and comes back the next week and lo and behold, they find no drugs. "Sorry, Mr. Drug dealer, you obviously have no drugs." Right.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

Good damn point. I think George W. Bush is at least as mad as Kim. If not worse.

No thank you, "Kingdom Warriors". No thank you "FAITH Force Multipliers". No thank you, Southern Baptists invading the military.

Get your damned fatal religion away from Americas' arsenal!

Americans: DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR CORRUPT HELL-RAISING GOVERNMENT. It is *NOT* serving your interests!!!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[IO ERROR]

Of course they have nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that. Everybody also knows that their missiles will only go about as far as Japan, too, which they seem to hate almost as much as the U.S.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[rokzy]

are you American?

well, outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. the inspectors didn't find a single thing.

if you were surprised that troops didn't find any WMDs then you were watching the wrong news channel before the war.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[sxpert]

yeah, and somehow, they stopped the search, unable to find anything

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems odd that you got the troll tag, and I got nuthin.

And Washington is just a gathering place for assholes. They're grown in Texas, and to a lesser extent, Mass.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ceeam]

Shit, man. Look at the map - do you realize what kind of country it is? It's (much) smaller than your average USian state. Maybe the size of Arkansas (too lazy to look it up). All they want as I see it is to be dorks (so that several party leaders can rip off the populace and feel cool) and to be left alone as it is. I don't think they want to "remake the world" or something. In short - please US, don't interfere! - you don't have enough political surgery skills required as has been proven several times lately. Actually, it's all between North Korea, South Korea, and Japan. Let them figure it out for themselves.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Eminence]

Knee-jerk???? If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea. And not because it has atomic weapons, no, but because it is the worst place on this planet since Auschwitz crematoriums ceased to work and Stalin died. Even Cuba is a paradise both in terms of economy (haven't heard of people dying from hunger there) and freedoms (on Cuba you are for example free to choose your profession and you don't have to worship whole family of Fidel three generations back). In North Korea people have 200 grams / 8 ounces food ration to survive on. Their kids are raised from the age of 4 in worship of the Dear Leader and his f**king, fortunately now dead, father. Everyone is a secret police informer. There is no private possessions or privacy of any kind - at least not for general population. They have no access to Internet, satellite TV or even foreign radio. Their nice capital is amazing because... there are no old people there (they get deported so that they don't spoil the looks). Hell, they even have concentration camps out there complete with gas chambers operating right now, in the 21st century. It is impossible for normal people to imagine the misery of people living there...

And please, before anyone replies to this with some pacifist BS just one suggestion: learn something about this country. I've talked to people who visited North Korea, I've even met a North Korean back in the eighties. I've read their own propaganda materials. This is an unforgettable experience, it is almost impossible not to feel compassion for those poor people who had the terrible misfortune to be born in this hell. Civilized world should do something about it if it is to be worthy that term.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Enoch Root]

1. They had WMDs? Oh, do you mean the chemical weapons they received from the US and other allies to use on Iran in the 80's, which they turned on the Kurds, and which they were forced to disarm after the first Gulf War?

2. Ok, so... According to you, the UN didn't find anything in Irak, NOT because they weren't there despite the US's best efforts to find them after they marched in claiming to have 100% PROOF that they did, BUT because the UN inspectors were inept? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[deanj]

Only one group? Quit your revisionist history bullshit. Here's one of many articles that clears up this bit of FUD:

From the Washington Post

Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."

Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."

Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

Al Gore: "[Saddam Hussein has] stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Bill Clinton describing "[Iraq's] offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.": "...Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Ohreally_factor]

Good point. He's not mad, he's just ronery. FUCK YEAH!!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[oirtemed]

You missed the point. The country that wants to "remake the world" is the US. The original poster is writing from NK point of view.

Geez.....

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[b-baggins]

UN still didn't buy into the 'proof'.

You mean, France, Russia and Germany didn't buy into it. And, um, perhaps that might just have been because Saddam was buying them off with oil

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Ironsides]

Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.

I'd be more sorry about Guam, American Samoa, Japan and South Korea personally. (among others)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[deanj]

"outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN't have WMDs".

Sorry, but that's complete FUD.

From this article:

Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."

Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

and that's leaving out the Clinton quotes.

Not to mention the fact that France, the UN and many other people were in Saddam's back pocket because of the money they received in the "Oil for Food" program. No wonder they were against war in Iraq. They already sold out.

So get off your damn high horse and quit acting all holier than tho. Getting bribed to keep a dictator in power isn't a virtue.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ezavada]

Yeah, that's pretty amusing. Kind of makes you think the moderators don't always read things very carefully (or occasionally click on the wrong buttons).

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

Knee-jerk???? If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea. And not because it has atomic weapons, no, but because it is the worst place on this planet since Auschwitz crematoriums ceased to work and Stalin died. Even Cuba is a paradise both in terms of economy (haven't heard of people dying from hunger there) and freedoms (on Cuba you are for example free to choose your profession and you don't have to worship whole family of Fidel three generations back). In North Korea people have 200 grams / 8 ounces food ration to survive on. Their kids are raised from the age of 4 in worship of the Dear Leader and his f**king, fortunately now dead, father. Everyone is a secret police informer. There is no private possessions or privacy of any kind - at least not for general population. They have no access to Internet, satellite TV or even foreign radio. Their nice capital is amazing because... there are no old people there (they get deported so that they don't spoil the looks). Hell, they even have concentration camps out there complete with gas chambers operating right now, in the 21st century. It is impossible for normal people to imagine the misery of people living there...

You know all this through your own propaganda machine.

Do you *REALLY* trust it that much to be calling for invasion?

Really?

Sure nobody else (weapons mfr's, military-industrial-complex, Southern Baptists Convention) won't stand to benefit from this?

Sure?!?? Really, really sure?!

I'm not. I don't trust American intelligence. Not one bit.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Morning $tar]

Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.

Who cares about Hawaii. If they can hit Hawaii, they can hit Japan, and taking out Japan would have a far greater effect on the U.S.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[just some computer j]

You are prolly right, it is just KJI just bluffing, since North Korea has not tested a nuclear weapon.

Let China deal with him, because let's face it, that is where KJI is getting most of the food and weapons for his army from. All China has to do is cut off that, and the problem will solve it's self.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[NardofDoom]

If you think for a minute that Kim Jong Il's ego is less valuable to him than the population he rules over you are sorely mistaken.

One day he'll forget his medication, nuke a small city, and NK will be a glass paved self-lighted parking lot.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[b-baggins]

Yep. Just because a million North Vietnamese are boiling grass to keep from starving to death. After all, they're just little yellow people on the other side of the world. Excuse me while I smoke a joint.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Lawrence_Bird]

Right Ok. And Clinton kissing PRNK ass in 1994 did a lot of
good too, right? Great leader claiming nukes didn't just
happen today, it happened not long after Bush got in.
Clearly the cheating that took place under 'better' relations
under Clinton had no effect.

The real threat to the US is not directly from them but
if/when they sell the technology or a completed weapon. I
wonder if the Chinese regret now their intervention in the
Korean war. Afterall, there are Islamist seperatists in
western China that would love nothing more than to teach
Bejing a good lesson.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[squiggleslash]

Oh, get off your high horse. It's so good to see that you are so willing to ignore two important facts:

Oh, now come on, as analogies and the rewriting of history goes, that takes the cake.

Iraq did have WMDs and used them on its own people... in the 1980s. This it did without any comeuppance. It wasn't until Iraq invaded Kuwait that the entire issue became one of concern to the rest of the world. The invasion was reversed, Iraq surrendered, agreed to destroy its WMDs, and promptly - under the guidance of the UN weapons inspections - promptly did. Meanwhile Saddam continued to terrorise his own people, just without using WMDs. The only silver lining was that the group terrorised became smaller and smaller until, by the end of the 90s, Saddam ran around a third of Iraq.

Your analogy is entirely wrong. If this really were a DEA/drug dealer thing, it'd happen a bit like this: The DEA goes in at the start, with an agreement to let the drug dealer avoid stiffer penalties if he destroys his drugs. The DEA watches him do this, but then the two reach a stalemate where the DEA hangs around on the off chance there's something it missed and the dealer is upset about the invasion of privacy this ensues. Eventually he kicks the DEA out, holes himself up in his house for a few months surrounded by armed police, finally lets the DEA back in, the DEA confirm that they believe there are no drugs in the house but would appreciate a little more cooperation from the sulking dealer, and finally the cops raid the house anyway.

Note the analogy is stupid, but that's because you came up with it.

Hans Blix was right. The right wing morons who insisted he and his team were stupid, incompetent, or whatever, really owe him a massive apology, and, FWIW, a debt of thanks. Yes, thanks. Because if he and his predecessors hadn't done their job, Iraq would have had WMDs, and there'd be a hell of a lot of dead Americans, British, Italians, and other allies outside Baghdad.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Eminence]

You know all this through your own propaganda machine.

Blah... blah... Have you ever in your life spoken to a North Korean? Have you ever talked with someone who was there? No? Go back, do your homework and then return with this kind of ignorant BS.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Atzanteol]

He (Saddam) did though. He used them, remember? There was never a question as to whether he *had* them at some time in the last 10 years. Just whether he *still* had them.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[internic]

Western intelligence agencies also said Saddam had a lot of WMDs he didn't have. I think for many of us we have no credulity left.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Ralph Wiggam]

I'm sure South Korea and China would be more than a little concerned if the US nuked North Korea. South Korea is our ally and China has more than two nukes.

The CIA briefed congress last year that North Korean missiles could probably get to California. As others are mentioning, Japan could be a target. Japan brutally occupied Korea from 1910 to WW2. The Koreans are still pretty unhappy about that.

-B

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Woy]

They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons.

Why is it that americans always feel the other countries should give up their nukes? Is the USA willing to give up its nukes? The way americans suggest this with a straight face over and over again is beyond disgusting. Nobody trusts you anymore. I am personally less threatned by North Korea than by the USA themselves, if only because you are ruining your economy and it will end up costing me too. N. Korea, like most of the big scary enemies of FreedomTM, would never be heard from again if left alone.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ezavada]

I didn't get if you are american or korean???

Perfect! I'd rather just admit to being human. Enjoy the mystery! :-)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[operagost]

Funny how you didn't quote the parent poster's last paragraph where he points out his first-hand experience with a North Korean immigrant and North Korean propaganda publications. Probably because it invalidates your "argument."

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[mpe]

Ok, so... According to you, the UN didn't find anything in Irak, NOT because they weren't there despite the US's best efforts to find them after they marched in claiming to have 100% PROOF that they did, BUT because the UN inspectors were inept? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.

This is the way Neocons have always thought. They know the enemy has weapons. In the past that enemy was the USSR. If there is no evidence then that must be because they are well hidden stealth weapons. In the case of Iraq apparently so well hidden that even the Iraqis couldn't find them when they were being invaded.
The more intensive the search the more elaborate conspiracy theories Neocons are likely to come up with to explain nothing being found.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ezavada]

You misread my post.

I would rather we all gave up our nukes. And I don't trust the American government very much right now either.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[lucabrasi999]

You are correct, of course. Although I think you did conveniently skip the Chirac quote about Saddam "probably" having weapons.

What I should have typed, instead, is the folks in the West Wing were the (almost) the only folks in the world to start a war without absolute proof. The folks in the West Wing were the only folks in the world willing to go to war for preventive reasons.

Since Kim Jong Il, in all probability, has nukes, I am finding the West Wing's position on his WMD's to be more than a bit hypocritical. (And, yes, I do know that Kim Jong Il could theoretically put a mushroom cloud over Beijing, Seoul and/or Tokyo whereas Saddam never had that capability).

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[pegasustonans]

Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Not only is there speculation that NK currently has missile technology capable of hitting Hawaii and Alaska (as you seemed to suggest) and that this technology will be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead within a year (if not already), there is also speculation that within two to three years they'll have missiles capable of hitting Washington, California and Oregon. And if you think the so-called "Missile Defense" system would be any help against such an attack, think again, because it's not even semi-operational yet and pretty much everyone admits it's not ready to counter an actual attack. So, while you may be somewhat correct in your statement if North Korea launched an attack on the U.S. today, the overall sentiment that North Korea could never and would never is not only dangerous but naive IMO.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[theinfobox]

"Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/1007 04nothreat.htm

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[operagost]

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[skittixch]

Irak being the new hip iraq for the next generation! *shoots self in face*

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[JavaLord]

I'm sure South Korea and China would be more than a little concerned if the US nuked North Korea. South Korea is our ally and China has more than two nukes.

Tactical nukes don't have as much fallout, I understand your point about SK and China but I am sure if NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, NK would be no more.

The CIA briefed congress last year that North Korean missiles could probably get to California.

North Korea tested out missles/rockets that could get to California, but 2 of the 3 tests failed IIRC. It's unlikely the North Koreans would try for California with that kind of failure rate.

As others are mentioning, Japan could be a target. Japan brutally occupied Korea from 1910 to WW2. The Koreans are still pretty unhappy about that.

It is sad to even think about Japan being a target of nuclear weapons again.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your head is not on straight. Have you ever seen the documentry "Fog of War" My McNemarea(May have spelled it wrong). When Russia had Nuclear Weapons on Cuba, Castro was willing to launch them be it the demise of Cuba. So this is a grave threat and you shouldn't underestimate both players, even our president.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Woy]

I got a bit carried away because it seemed your post could acidentally be applied to either side, and you hadn't even noticed. I guess that was your point all along.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every thrid world country wants the US to attack. The thrid world countries true power base doens't go away, and they get new shinny roads, hospitals, Starbucks, etc. built with US tax dollars.

1). Start a civil war
2). Threaten US
3). Lose war with US
4). Profit!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't particularly believe it either. Me thinks Kim Jong Il is compensating for something if you get my meaning...

No direct proof, no tests, no signs of even a delivery system that could hit anything other than perhaps South Korea which, so far as I'm concerned he's more than welcome to. The fallout will just blow back on the North anyway and soon his own citizens will be losing hair, blistering skin, and bleeding from the gums.

When the time comes that North Korea can prove it can stike at me here is the day I'll get worried. I'm pretty certain that day is a long way off.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fjandr]

Correction: They hate Japan more than they hate the US. The whole raping, pillaging military occupation thing has a tendency to foster feelings of resentment.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[hb253]

OK, so Bush isn't my cup of tea either. However, if I understand you correctly, North Korea is a perfectly normal country and Kim Jung Il is a perfectly normal dictator?

Your ignorance about North Korea is simply astounding.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[pegasustonans]

Sure, but Saddam didn't say, "I have nukes and I'll use them against the U.S. if necessary." This is essentially what the government of North Korea just said (along with a few other implications that go along with this).

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[mrtrumbe]

Deep breath. Calm down, everyone.

I agree with you that many people outside the US--and many liberals in the US--thought that Saddam had aspirations of WMDs and probably had a few stashes of weapons with rather limited destructive potential. I thought that myself. What I disagree with is the conclusion that was drawn from that information by the Bush administration: that Saddam's aspirations and small amount of weapons made him so dangerous to the US and other countries that we needed to go to war to stop him. I never believed that. And I believe my perception of the situation was vindicated after the war. Saddam's weapons programs were in shambles and his "stockpiles" of weapons were puny to non-existant. Clinton and Chirac may have recognized that Saddam COULD be a danger, left unchecked, but neither of them thought he was so dangerous as to undertake a war because of it. He was contained. His power and danger was very limited. They recognized this. Bush and company didn't.

This, obviously, doesn't speak to the humanitarian aspect of the war. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam in power. But do you want the US to be the world police? Do you want the US to right every wrong in the world (or are we even capable)? I don't want that. Clinton had this tendency, as well, and I didn't like it one bit. There will always be injustice in the world, but the US can't be held responsible for all of it. How about letting an international body figure out when intervention is needed and deploy international troops in that case (UN anyone?). Why not work with the UN to get more EU or Chinese troops in the UN peacekeeping forces? Why not try to better the UN to make sure it answers humanitarian crises in a timely and efficient manner? It would be better than taking the responsibility (and risks, international PR problems, etc.) on our shoulders alone. Bush combined his cowboy "go it alone" attitude with Clinton's "world police" tendencies and ended up painting us into a international relations corner. Not a great strategy, if you ask me.

Further, on the point of the "Oil for food" program, you should really look up the US's involvement in the program from it's start shortly after the first Iraq war. The US helped set up the program and benefitted from the program for years before it was determined that it wasn't in our best interests. Sure, at the time of the second Iraq war we weren't involved in the program any longer, but many out there like to paint the picture that the US's hands were clean. I don't buy it. Backdoor dealings for power/money are the norm in US politics. Why would you assume those principles wouldn't apply to our international dealings as well? We were involved in the program and my guess is that we benefited from it.

Taft

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really I don't give a damn what is happening inside North Korea. It's a domestic issue that no other country has the right to interfere with. If the leader wants to torture his people it's his choice. It does not affect the rest of the world. If North Korea does make it apparent that they want to move this behaviour outside their own borders then it's time for the world to get involved, not before.

This goes the same for any other country where things happen that we may not agree with. It's an internal domestic issue and none of our business and none of anyone elses.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

vietnamese, korean... those yellow people sure are confusing you, aren't they?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Threni]

I think you mean iRak. It's Apple's new country. It's similar to other countries, except its got a boring design and is overpriced compared to it's neighbours!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Citizen of Earth]

If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea.

I completely agree, but unfortunately, invading North Korea is an intractible problem. Even if The People's Democratic Bullshit Dictatorship of North Korea doesn't have nukes, it still has plenty of WMDs of other kinds and plenty of conventional weapons. During the opening hours of an invasion, hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery and missiles would rain down on Seoul and kill millions of civilians. This is why it's intractible. And if NK does have The Bomb, the invasion force would also be nuked.

The only feasible way to approach it would be if the US opened with a heavy barrage of neutron bombs to kill most of the 700,000 NK soldiers that line the border, but AFAIK the neturon bomb was discontinued and the usual pacifists would get all worked up in a lather about it anyway.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Not only is there speculation that NK currently has missile technology capable of hitting Hawaii and Alaska (as you seemed to suggest)

I did suggest, and they can.

and that this technology will be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead within a year (if not already), there is also speculation that within two to three years they'll have missiles capable of hitting Washington, California and Oregon.

They have already tested rockets that 'could' carry nuclear warheads that would reach california, but their tests had a high failure rate.

And if you think the so-called "Missile Defense" system would be any help against such an attack, think again, because it's not even semi-operational yet and pretty much everyone admits it's not ready to counter an actual attack.

Did I even mention 'star wars' or SDI? No. SDI isn't functional, and it constantly fails when they try to test it. I simply said NK probably couldn't hit the continental US right now.

So, while you may be somewhat correct in your statement if North Korea launched an attack on the U.S. today, the overall sentiment that North Korea could never and would never is not only dangerous but naive IMO.

Well, I was only talking about 'today'. Lets play this down the line though. 5 years from now, NK can hit anywhere in the US west coast. They have 8 functional nuclear missles. Do they launch? If they do, it's still suicide.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fjandr]

That argument may have worked before the now-evident fact that Saddam had nothing.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually he kicks the DEA out

Wrong. Saddam never kicked out the inspectors. They left voluntarily so that they wouldn't be killed by US bombs.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fjandr]

Shrublet picked Iraq because A) Saddam outlasted Shrublet's father and B) he could be reasonably sure Saddam wouldn't have any weapons of mass destruction up his sleeve as a result of the tens-of-thousands-page manual on Iraqi weapon development the Iraq gave the UN.

The US edited out the parts that showed the US allowing the sale of WMD components from US defense contractors (among other things), and went to war anyway.

Iraq was mostly meant to stroke Shrublet's ego and ensure re-election.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your head is not on straight. Have you ever seen the documentry "Fog of War" My McNemarea(May have spelled it wrong).

When Russia had Nuclear Weapons on Cuba, Castro was willing to launch them be it the demise of Cuba

This is believable. Castro would be willing for Cuba to be destroyed in order for communism to win. I can believe that mindset (maybe) because he probably believed Russia would have won a nuclear war at that point. Kim Jong Ill would be willing to have North Korea destroyed...for what? He has no prevailing ideology to die for. A nuclear attack on the US would not destroy the US, yet it would me the destruction of North Korea. He has no motivation to follow through.

. So this is a grave threat and you shouldn't underestimate both players, even our president.

Are you suggesting that Bush would launch a nuclear attack on North Korea without North Korea attacking first?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Vince Mo'aluka]

It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation.

And if God exists, the political leaders on each side who are responsible for initiating the attacks will burn in hell for the rest of eternity.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Citizen of Earth]

well, outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. the inspectors didn't find a single thing.

I think the intelligence experts of most countries knew that Saddam DID have WMSs.

Actually, I'm a little surprised that the pacifists don't congratulate Dubya on his honesty. I assume most such people assumed that the US would simply plant or fabricate some WMD evidence after invading. If any had been found, this would have been the first thing out of such people's mouths.

We'll just see if the Europeans have any luck negotiating with Iran. My fear is that they will, and they will be celebrating peace in our time while Iran builds The Bomb at their secret sites unhindered.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Vaystrem]

"Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii"

Everyone is sort of missing the point. Their missile tech probably isn't good enough to hit the continental United States 'but' is sufficient to damage the American Economy. What about a well placed nuke in Japan? What about Taiwan and destroying most of the world' s chip fabrication capacity? Or Hong Kong? Or South Korea?

A direct hit upon the United States is not required to damage the United States attacking its interests are 'sufficient'. By those measures - Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (as a global financial centre, etc.) certainly qualify.

There is a reason why South Korea is attempting to MOVE thier Capital. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. If NK marches south... Seoul can be leveled before the war even really starts.

Traditional discussions of territoriality are less important in an (and I hate to use this cliche) increasingly globalized world.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

Have you ever in your life spoken to a North Korean?

Yes.


Have you ever talked with someone who was there?

Yes. Why else do you think I don't believe your American bullshit propaganda machine?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[daiakuma]

No, not just France Russia and Germany. China also was opposed. Only four of the fifteen members of the security council (US, UK, Bulgaria and Spain) supported the "second resolution" and military invasion. All the rest supported continued inspections. One didn't need to be bought off to oppose the war -- the war was a stupid idea, and anyone who didn't have an axe to grind could see that.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[northcat]

Typical American...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Vince Mo'aluka]

If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea.

Do the innocents deserve to die? I'm quite serious -- answer the question. Do the innocent civilians of North Korea deserve to die? Becauase that is exactly what will happen if the US invades North Korea, just as tens of thousands of innocents have already been killed by the US invasion of Iraq.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Sique]

You mean, France, Russia and Germany didn't buy into it. And, um, perhaps that might just have been because Saddam was buying them off with oil

Does it bother you that they just were right? And that you blindly believed someone who himself blindly believed what had to be right because his political agenda didn't allow something else?

Fact is: Mr. Kay didn't find any WMD program in an Iraq where every site and every place was open to him.
Fact is: Hans Blix's inspectors found in 1995 a biological warfare program at a site that was supposedly a chicken food plant (the inspector who actually went there was a german), which amounts to the 650kg of biological material Hans Blix made a remark about.
Fact is: Every 'proof' that Mr. Powell presented to the UN Security Council was none.
Fact is: The allegeded Yellow Cake trade with Niger Mr. Bush cited in his speeches was a forgery.
Fact is: No one outside the U.S. intelligence circles and government seemed convinced about Iraq's WMD progress, even the british scientist who was working at this (and by himself was convinced that maybe they could find a proof, but as of then they had none) talked about his doubts to a BBC reporter (who in turn called Mr. Blair a liar, when Mr. Blair in fact had just an interesting way of telling the truth, that's where everything got messy).

Fact is: Saddam Hussein was trying to buy any support he could get hold of. He even was trying to buy himself into diverse terrorist circles, but failed utterly, as the report to the Congress from Mr. Kay shows. He was gripping every straw he could find. He tried to bribe all people he thought could get him a little more out of his mess. He spent (as far as we know today) about US$ 2,5 billion on bribery.

But to say that someone actually believed the truth because he got bribed to believe the truth is... lets put it like this... quite strange.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Citizen of Earth]

Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons.

NK is also a chief exporter of missile technology. Maybe the US should look into building some kind of missle-defence system.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little surprised that the pacifists don't congratulate Dubya on his honesty.

Dubya isn't smart enough to keep his staff's views on torture silent, you think he's smart enough to pull off a lie the size of a small country?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq did have WMDs and used them on its own people... in the 1980s

And they got them from the US. Ever think the US gave them Anthrax as well? Now those Anthrax attacks that you NEVER hear about in the US press anymore...That Anthrax was traced back to a US lab. Nothing was reported after that....

Ever think that the US gave that Anthrax to Iraq for use in the Iraq/Iran war, then Iraq gave the leftovers to OBL and crew after the first gulf war?

This leaves the US government in the shaky position of "Well yeah, Iraq attacked us indirectly with our own Biological weapons that we gave them" which means !!LAWSUITS!! from the families of those who died. So the US just says "oh yeah, we are going to invade Iraq, we know they have WMD!"

Oh, and PS. Iraq was a threat to the US. Even Putin knew it.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[JustDisGuy]

By "proof", do you mean "mushroom cloud"?
You mean, like this one?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

no ones hands where clean, its just some keep them in their pockets

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[hamburger lady]

William Cohen: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."


uh, you have to remember that saddam most definitely did have WMDs back in 1998, which is why clinton bombed the ever-lovin crap outta iraq. the question isn't did saddam have WMDs in 1998, its did he have them in 2003.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Upaut]

That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missiles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.

Any nuclear missiles they have would not be aimed at the U.S. They would be aimed at SOL(sp?). Just as the rest of their missiles, and the majority of their army is positioned to hit in under an hour. This is their get out of jail card; always has been, and always will be. Any retaliation towards N. Korea, and the S. Korea capital, all stationed U.S personnel there, many U.S corporations that have offices there, etc., will be gone in a flash. They do not attack because we (America/UN) will wipe their crazy leaders, military, etc. , off the map. We do not attack because if we do, they will take as many people that we (America/UN) care about. This does not fit in my definition of a bluff, because I know with all information present that this will in fact happen.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Auschwitz would have been cool by you if Hitler didn't want to expand beyond Germany's original borders?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[demachina]

I'm confused. The U.S. is spending like $8 billion dollars a year on Missile Defense and I hear it was just declared operational. That must make all these threats from North Korea meaningless, right?

Oh wait, I forgot, the Bush administration is declaring the system operational even though the last test failed, and the didn't interceptor didn't even launch, in fact several of the very few carefully controlled tests have failed miserably. In the last test the busses to the control system overloaded and it started dropping messages. Their fix was to chang the threshold so the missile can overload and drop data and it just wont count as a fualt any more. I really want a missile with an overloaded control system flying around.

And, of course, a nation launching an attack on the U.S. can throw some relatively cheap missiles without nukes in them at the defense first and swamp it, then send in the nukes, and maybe put in decoys next to the real warheads, or do as the Russians are now doing and build warheads that can manuever and dodge the kill vehicle to defeat it. Building Maginot Lines, which is what Bushes missile defense, was pretty much discredited when the Germans just rolled around it in to France in World War II.

And of course if you are rogue nation with nukes you can probably just smuggle one in to the U.S. on a tramp steamer, submarine or along American's massively porous borders. There are coyotes and drug smugglers that can probably smuggle anything in to the U.S. for the right price.

Somebody needs to hit the White House with a clue stick and point out to them that if they are going to rely on a defense system like this, and squander all this money on it, they at least need to con the world in to thinking that it works so its a real deterant. If it fails test after test and you make it operational anyway your enemies are just going to laugh at it and you.

Not sure North Korea even has any nukes in the first place. Until they light one off for the world to see, it could just as easily be bluffing because they know the one and only way to discourage the Bush administration from invading you, for no particular reason, is to say you have nukes. If you have problems actually developing a real nuke, just say you do and no one can prove you wrong. Its the flip side of Iraq, Bush said Iraq did have WMD's and it was impossible for Iraq to prove they didn't. North Korea can say they have WMD's and no one can prove they don't, until they decide to actually set one off and prove the do.

The Bush administration has done a really great job of giving an incentive to every nation we don't like to rush to develop or acquire nukes, or failing that just claim they already have them.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Idarubicin]

We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.

Indeed. Just in case North Korea was unaware that the United States had that capability....

Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

What is this, Civ II?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[front]

Oh boy... North Korea does not need to "hit" the US with a nuke to have an effective nuclear deterrent against US aggression.

All they have to be able to do is nuke the carrier battles groups as they approach the Korean coasts... or nuke the main staging areas in South Korea for a US-led invasion of the North. 50,000 dead (or lingering and will be dead soon) US soldiers in one or two attacks by the North might not end that war really quick... but it will sure put a dent in any future war plans.

And that is the only deterrent the North Koreans need.

cheers

front

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[hackstraw]

"Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East."

Depends on how you define threat. http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Its pretty clear that the whole WMD thing and the mass confusion and patriotism after 9/11/01 were just convenient for an invasion. After all, a benevolent country like the US could never overtly attack another country for purely economic reasons, right?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical ANTI-American!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Kosi]

If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea.

Which rules out the USA. (Not only)

It is impossible for normal people to imagine the misery of people living there...

Get your imaginations at Guantanamo.

Civilized world should do something about it if it is to be worthy that term.

As they should something about their biggest threat: the current regime in the USA.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[MachineShedFred]

As someone who lives on "the western seaboard" I would appreciate you not writing off the 50+ million people that live in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Maybe they should vaporize YOU and everything you know.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ProgressiveCynic]

And actually even the claim that Saddam gassed his own people in the 80s has been disputed. It may well have been Iran, and in either case it happened on a battlefield. We've managed to kill 100,000 civilians with our advanced "smart" bombs - is it surprising that primitive mortars would kill 5,000?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[abb3w]

Kim Jong Ill would be willing to have North Korea destroyed...for what? He has no prevailing ideology to die for.

Au contraire, by all independent reports he does have such a prevailing ideology: his ego.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[johnjay]

I agree with you. According to the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption, this announcement, combined with what is known about NK's involvement in A. Q. Kahn's nuclear market, seems to be more of a causus belli than the intelligence against Saddam.

(I'm not interested in debating the justification of the war in Iraq. My assumption is that you aren't either.)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Tactical nukes don't have as much fallout

A myth. Fallout from a nuclear weapon is based on the size of the boom, and the nearness to the ground.

Not on whether it was a "tactical" boom or a "strategic" boom.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your misunderstanding of the parent comment is what is simply astounding.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy... North Korea does not need to "hit" the US with a nuke to have an effective nuclear deterrent against US aggression.

I never said that NK needed to "hit" the US in order to have a nuclear deterrent. I simply said that NK probably couldn't even hit the US and that if they tried the response from the US would be nuclear (addressing the parent to my post).

All they have to be able to do is nuke the carrier battles groups as they approach the Korean coasts... or nuke the main staging areas in South Korea for a US-led invasion of the North. 50,000 dead (or lingering and will be dead soon) US soldiers in one or two attacks by the North might not end that war really quick... but it will sure put a dent in any future war plans.

Yes, that works find as a deterrent, as does hitting Hawaii, or Japan as other people pointed out. However, your idea of this putting a "dent" in future war plans is silly. NK nukes SK and kills US soldiers there, and NK is no more within 48 hours.

And that is the only deterrent the North Koreans need.

Agreed, just having the nuke with enough range to hit US interests will deter the US from attempting "regime change". Like I said in my original post, that is a card North Korea can not play though, since it will mean their destruction.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[pegasustonans]

Well, if it's just NK's nuclear capabilities as of today that we're talking about, then I see a line of reasoning that might lead one to believe a more aggressive stance might be called for. The direct nuclear threat NK poses today is nothing next to what it will be in five years time if they continue to resist coming to the table. The problem with a direct aggressive action against NK is problematic, though it will always remain problematic and indeed will become much more so as their nuclear arsenal increases.
The key problem at the moment is what China's reaction would be and also the possibility of an attack on Japan or South Korea. But in five or ten years time this threat grows disastrously.
The other problem is that, frankly, the United States doesn't have the political capital to spend on the matter. If an attack were launched on NK's nuclear facilities, China might well launch an invasion of Taiwan or could freeze trade relations with the U.S. And, furthermore, the United States has far too many military assets in the Middle East, where no direct threat exists, to counter the military ambitions of various states in East Asia, where direct threats grow more distinct with each passing year.
Ah well, that's my rant on the matter anyway.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[superflippy]

I read an article (I believe it was in the Times Online, can't find it now) that described how North Korea was dissolving from the inside out. People are escaping the country across several borders, and infighting is eating away at the ability of the ruling group to stay in power.

I can't imagine what they hope to accomplish by this new announcement, other than to perhaps go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[kkovach]

Speaking of what Kim Jong Il says ... Here's a link to his diary which includes some IMs between our own W and Il. It's truly reveling.

http://www.livejournal.com/~kim_jong_il__/

- Kevin

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that 99% of the media 'forgets' to mention is the fact that biological and chemical weapons have a limited shelf life - 5 years at the maximum. Any chemical or biological weapons Iraq had in 1990 would have been useless by 1996. That is why the soldiers that were next to a sarin gas artillery shell when it exploded last year just got a headache instead of dying. Al Franken calls that a "Weapon of Mass Discomfort". :)

The Bush administration had to know that, Hans Blix didn't find any unexpired WMDs, and he found no facilities at all for making new WMDs.

Bush Lied. The war was for oil, not terrorism.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[cfulmer]

Your analogy would be better if it said "The dealer's son-in-law goes to the DEA and tells them that the dealer still has drugs. ... finally lets the DEA back in, but prevents them from looking in the kitchen cabinets and the hall closet. DEA uses that and information from informants to raid the house. It later turns out that the informants were wrong."

People think hindsight is always 20/20. In reality, it's always 20/ : You know what happened when you went down one path, but still don't know what would have happened down the other path.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Drakonian]

Phew! Well it's good to know that someone will ensure justice is served. Too bad about the millions of people though.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't trust American intelligence. Not one bit.

Whose intelligence do you trust?

You seem very narcissistic...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Saddam and OBL were not exactly chummy. OBL hated Saddam/Iraq.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[PsiPsiStar]

One more thing to add to the analogy.

The DEA in this case has one of the largest stockpiles of drugs in the world.

It just says it doesn't use them unless it really really needs them.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Do we want to encourage future states to do the same thing?

Of course! If we stop them, then Bush's Plan for World Domination falls on its feet.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

not particularly, Auschwitz was outside of Germany's borders. Germany should never gotten so far. It had already moved to affect countries and people outside of its borders. It is rather doubtful that the rest of the world had the resources to make a preemptive strike against Hitler or the Germany of those days though. In these modern days a more direct and forceful opposition should be possible.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, frenchie.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Saddam and OBL were not exactly chummy. OBL hated Saddam/Iraq.

OBL "hated" Saddam in 1991 and was willing to go to war with him to drive him out of kuait (sp). However he softened on him after the US invaded Iraq during the first gulf war. Surely, OBL prefers a Sunni infidel to an American Crusader, and if such an infidel offered a little anthrax to further his jihad against the west, do you think he would deny it? OBL didn't hate Iraq BTW, he hated the fact that they weren't a religious state.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't think anyone would say Auschwitz was "cool", but no, nobody would have gone to war over that. There were rumors/stories about the Nazis exterminating Jews, but nobody entertained the notion of a war until Germany invaded Poland.

Hell, during WWI, the US was in negotiations w/ England AND Germany to provide supplies (remember, Wilson was dedicated to neutrality), until the whole Zimmerman affair sparked public (US) outrage against Germany. Again, US didn't care about WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
So no, I don't think the US, or anybody else, has much of a history of entering wars based on moral outrage.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[edbarbar]

Really I don't give a damn what is happening inside North Korea. It's a domestic issue that no other country has the right to interfere with.

You are saying the dictators are legitimate? Kim Jong "owns" his people or something? From where did he get his legitimacy? God? Inherited a nation of slaves?

What? He keeps his power by force? Well, then I say there is nothing wrong with taking it away, either.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the several million people in Seoul? Willing to write them off?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[jackbird]

US didn't care about WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

What the hell was the lend-lease program, then? Why did we tolerate tens of thousands of tons of our shipping being sunk on the way to England?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[grumpyman]

What kinda 'weapon'? Any country has some weapon. WTF is weapons of mass destruction anyway? Now WMD == nuke? Bacterial growth media? We have plenty of that in the beer factories in town. Oh btw, how much 'conventional' weapons are there in the states? WTF is 'conventional weapon'? Does that include cluster bombs? The army wasn't using water gun are they? What's more dangerous? One nuke or one million cluster bombs?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're fucking dying anyway you idiot.

Much less would die in the long run and it would be a much quicker and much less painfull death.

But hey, it's easy to talk shit when you're living the high life. Fuck 'em. Let 'em all die of starvation right? It was their choice to be born in that hell hole.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over your self ass hole.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Dread_ed]

Are the people really really innocnet?

Are you sure? Really really sure?

Are they not responsible for the power structure that is in place that allows atrocities to be comitted on a dily basis? Isn't it their children, brothers, sisters, uncles, fathers, and mothers that inform on eachother and man the prisons and the machines of death that terrorize the population to keep them in line? Aren't the people that turn a blind eye to iniquity of their peers and leaders complicit in the acts? If you watch as your friends and family are systematically subjugated, starved, tortured, even killed, are you not part of the problem?

People are responsible for their actions. Similarly governments are responsible for their people and the actions of a government can bring consequences to their people.

Also, if the grandparent's post is accurate the "innocents" are already being killed by the Korean government. If they are already being killed, and will continue being killed by the government, is it not prudent to put a stop to it now? Also, if the government has aggressive tendencies do you want to run the risk of them subjugating and destroying the people of other countries? Seriously think about a government that systematically kills portions of its own population and imagine what they would do to the population of a different country.

If the lives of the innocents are so damn important why haven't you done something already? They have been dying for quite awhile. Why do they all of a sudden matter more than they did yesterday?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SuperBigGulp]

You're thinking old school. Wolfowitz & Feith would tell you we can invade NK with a dozen cub scouts and an angry hamster.
Thats how they sold the Iraq war...gather up all the rational estimates for troop strength, divide them by 10, and you've got your "transformational" invasion force.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously not since we have yet to see any economic benefits from this.

Ask anybody here and I'm sure they'll tell you it's been the other way around.

Except for when it supports their retarded claims (like this one). Then they quickly change their argument and hope nobody notices the flaws.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SnowZero]

Sigh, so many people have no idea of timeline or context: The US told NK they could have aid if they didn't develop nuclear technology. NK agreed to this 10 years ago. They then took the aid and developed nukes anyway. The US suspended aid, which NK then declared a "hostile" policy.

What is so unreasonable about following an agreement both sides made? If they want nukes, they can give up all future aid. The US would decline an offer in the same way. NK expecting to have both nukes and aid is completely unreasonable. The US doesn't need aid, so it doesn't need to give up nukes.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[tgrigsby]

Ok, so running with the previous analogy, the DEA gives the drug dealer drugs, but when the drug dealer uses the drugs to throw a party and his neighbors are horrified and demand that he be arrested. The DEA does nothing, possibly because drawing too much attention to the situation might reveal where the drug dealer got the drugs?

I'm kind of enjoying this analogy. As a previous writer stated, it's stupid, but it's entertaining.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I like your answer, it's the right one.
But I bet if this was a Korean service my original post would have been mod +5 :)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

A pro-Bush relative of mine says Iraq moved the WMD to Iran right before the invasion. It must feel nice knowing that whatever happens you can just make up a crazier story and say you were right the whole time.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[mpmansell]

Last time I looked, Auschwitz was in Poland, so that kind of makes that comment pointless.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SomeGuyFromCA]

> Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. the inspectors didn't find a single thing.

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. for an idea of the scale and manpower problems the inspectors faced, imagine searching an entire golf course for a wedding ring.

given three people and four hours.

while there's armed guards and a barbed wire fence around the 8th tee, where you're prevented from going in until a golf cart rolls up and takes away a few boxes.

> if you were surprised that troops didn't find any WMDs then you were watching the wrong news channel before the war.

no reasonable person should be surprised that none were found, just like no reasonable person should be surprised that iraq's official forces got steamrolled but guerilla fighting continues.

think about it this way. the only way saddam could hope to win at all is in the court of public opinion. if he has WMDs, to use them would immediately prove that bush was right; so would leaving them intact and in the country to be found.

we gave him more than enough warning and he knew when invasion was inevitable. at that point, if he had WMDs at all, he moved or destroyed them. it's the same principle where people being pursued by the police throw bags of pot out their windows.

i'm not saying that he did and i'm not saying that he didn't. i'm just saying, either way, the fact that none were around to be found is not surprising.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SnowZero]

Did innocent German citizens deserve to die in WWII? No, they didn't, but it's pretty much unavoidable in a conflict. As much as people think it is insensitive, you have to look at the benefits vs. costs. This applies even beyond war. Assuming you drive a car, you must realize that innocent people have to die for people to drive cars (pedestrian accidents). It's inevitable, but if the benefits to society outweigh the costs...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Citizen of Earth]

Thats how they sold the Iraq war...gather up all the rational estimates for troop strength, divide them by 10, and you've got your "transformational" invasion force.

The Blitzkrieg invasion force for Iraq was extremely successful. The enemy was so demoralized that most enemy troops didn't even fight. Baghdad was captured and Saddam's regime was ousted in three weeks flat. Friendly casualties were extremely low.

OTOH, of course, the forces for occupying the country were too low and the ramp-up of indiginous forces was too slow, but let's confuse the invasion with the occupation.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Moofie]

But Bush's dad didn't neglect to overthrow Korea twelve years ago, so there's no causus belli at all.

What, you actually thought Bush Jr. actually cared about WMDs? That was just window dressing.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

I realize that this might just be ignorant on my part, but where is the 100,000 civilians number coming from? It seems like I would see that number reported on the news, but I haven't. The only time I heard it mentioned is on this site.

I'm not arguing, I'm just wondering where it comes from. Any sources that aren't biased? It's not like we can trust Al Jazeera (IMHO).

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[carlmenezes]

The point is, it is incentive enough NOT to mess with N.Korea. The US thinks Kim Jong Il is one step short of a psycho. Kim Jong Il knows it too and he is using this as a "deterrent". It's simple politics really. Basically, Kim Jong Il is saying "If you try anything with N.Korea, don't blame us if we hit back with nukes". Whether it's true or not is immaterial. the point is, the risk in calling the bluff is too great.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

I think that's called being human. We suck. You know, fallen creatures and all.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Moofie]

Please tell me you understand that there is no such animal as a "typical American".

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

You know, this brings to mind a question for any history buffs out there. Are there other instances of a "super" power (either regional or worldwide) not taking over countries they invade?

It seems to me that from the Ancient Egyptians through the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, right on up to not-so-long-ago England, France, etc. that most invasions have ended in long-time occupation. Occupation that is only removed through revolution of some sort (or after a very long time). America seems to be getting out of these recently invaded places quickly. Is this a new historic trend or just another twist on an old one?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft, reading /. propaganda is no excuse for spewing such BS Kosi.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fallingcow]

The strategy was sound, but the forces used to execute it were too small in number. Yes, we drove to Baghdad very quickly, but we left huge pockets of resistance behind the "front lines" of the battle, all of which had to be mopped up later and--this part's my opinion--which helped to supply the early, hit-and-run-style resistance forces with personnel and equipment. If we'd had enough troops to handle the "mopping up" concurrently with the drive toward Baghdad, it is my belief that the earlier stages of the insurgency would have been much weaker, and may never have developed to the stage it's at now.

Hell, didn't PFC Lynch get captured because her convoy managed to wander into one of these leftover "pockets" behind the main front lines?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Woy]

You just don't get it. If the US somehow weaseled their way into making a starving people promise to abandon their only significant defense against an admittedly hostile government (the US never was very fond of communism), then of course the starving people will say yes. And then they'll screw you and make nukes anyway. The thing is, you can't expect some far away goverment to follow the rules you set (and they agreed) if those rules mean they will be defenseless. If they are starving, they will just agree and take advantage of US naivety and lazyness.

Imagine your daughter is dying in pain and you can't save her. Imagine I arrive with exactly what she needs to recover, but i demand that you become my property in exchange, as in slavery. You, or at least many people, would probably accept, but later you woulnd't comply. And any court of law would agree with you: some contracts just can't be obeyed, no matter what both parties said or wrote at some other time.

And yes, defenselessness is slavery. True Freedom must include safety, as in freedom from fear.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only feasible way to approach it would be if the US opened with a heavy barrage of neutron bombs to kill most of the 700,000 NK soldiers that line the border, but AFAIK the neturon bomb was discontinued and the usual pacifists would get all worked up in a lather about it anyway.

Actually, a precision tactical nuclear strike at multiple locations would probably work better. use up some of the weapons we have rather than dgging up the plans for neutron bombs and building them. Yes it would kill civillians, and no it probably wouldn't save Seoul. However, assuming no other country decides to get in on the nuclear war, it could be over relatively quickly.

A follow-up attack using conventional warheads and simply flattening the country prior to an invasion force moving in to hold the country indefinitely and the problem is solved (Though not any of the new problems created by the solution).

And before anyone posts whining about radioactive fallout and halflives of billions of years: the smallest tactical nuke has a yeild of .01 kilotons so there's very little radioactive material available. In addition to this an airburst would produce very little fallout. If there's no fallout then how will the earth be poisoned for generations to come?

--Kehvarl, Somewhat anonymous.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

What arrogance. Everything reported about N. Korea doesn't mean it's "American propaganda". Don't you think someone from North Korea, who you supposedly spoke to, would be even more subjected to the DPRK propaganda and that you would believe that?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[TGK]

Their BOAT technology is. Remember that figure everyone ignored during the election? 97% of cargo entering US ports isn't inspected.

If North Korea wants the ultimate deterrent to a US invasion it's already got a weapon in a shielded case sitting in a warehouse in LA somewhere.

Missiles are what you use to respond quickly to a threat you might not foresee. A Missile will get your weapon to target in 30 minutes or so but will cost you hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

Why bother when FedEx will get your weapon to target overnight? You can even buy insurance!

(Note, the FedEx bit is in jest, they have a weight limit that precludes most nuclear weapons)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

except its got a boring design and is overpriced compared to it's neighbours!

you are such a moroun.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ProgressiveCynic]

Actually, Al Jazeera is no more biased than Fox or CNN. Different bias of course...

The 100,000 figure does not come from them however, it is from a study led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was released last October. It was covered in the media, more in the international media of course.

Guardian
NYT
International Herald Tribune
Washington Post

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still his country and they are his people. If they want him out let them take up arms and do it themselves. Why should it be the concern of the rest of the world community?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

Thanks for the various sources of info.

I can't say that I'm convinced of the number, both because of the circumstances of the report and the presense of conflicting reports, but it is interesting regardless. It sounds like this number could be anywhere from an order of magnitude too high, to a few thousand too low. Perhaps as time goes on we'll learn more.

Regardless of my feelings on the war, I do hope and pray for the people of Iraq. They have a chance at freedom & happiness that they have never known.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hans Blix on Iraq before the invasion:

"I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict. " http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_03120 3/index.jhtml

Blix's findings were largely ignored by the Bush administration. Bush already had his agenda, and he pushed it through.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[I8TheWorm]

And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House

I didn't realize that members of Congress now populated the west wing. In case your longer term memory fails you, have a look here and remind yourself of all the people (including Kerry) who said Saddam had WMD's.

The fact remains that everyone's decision was based on faulty intelligence. Congress voted yes on on Iraqi invasion. Quit blaming Bush, as he was only the most visible proponent of invasion.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[b-baggins]

Let me play poker with you some time, because the concept of bluffing is obviously totally alien to you.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[rewt66]

You could never do it, but if you somehow could offer the citizens of North Korea the chance to go to Guantanamo, and live like the prisoners do there, they would take it in a heartbeat. It's a paradise. At least the prisoners aren't starving. They aren't being executed.

If you think that Guantanamo is the standard of "the worst possible human condition", you have no clue about how bad things can get.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ProgressiveCynic]

Which circumstances raised your suspicion level? Just out of curiosity. BTW, DemocracyNow! had an interesting interview with one of the study's authors.

By 'order of magnitude too high' you meant that there could easily have been only 99,999 casualties, right? ;-) If you were using the more common usage and meant that there might have only been 10,000 take a look at the Iraq Body Count site. They have been tracking all confirmed media reports of casualties, and the current minimum is 15,671.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[deewite]

Fact is: Mr. Kay didn't find any WMD program in an Iraq where every site and every place was open to him.

Wrong: Mr. Kay did find evidence of programs (dual-use of course), but he did not find large stockpiles or evidence of mass production activity. The Duelfer report also did not find stockpiles but did find evidence of: efforts to reconstitute nuclear programs, chemical and biological weapons experiments, and small-scale "terrorist" type chemical and biological weapons prototypes. Some key findings were:

Nuclear
*Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date.

*In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and to preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community. ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted.

Chemical
*The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals, but ISG will not be able to resolve whether Iraq intended the system to underpin any CW related efforts.

*Iraq's historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.

*ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations.

Biological
*Iraq would have faced great difficulty in re-establishing an effective BW agent production capability. Nevertheless, after 1996 Iraq still had a significant dual-use capability--some declared--readily useful for BW if the Regime chose to use it to pursue a BW program. Moreover, Iraq still possessed its most important BW asset, the scientific know-how of its BW cadre.

*Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course.

*ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

*The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent.

Source: http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/inde x.html (Duelfer Report)

The point is not to look at what was wrong; there were mistaken assessments. The point is to find what was right. Saddam was in breach of sanctions, and his intentions were clear. Furthermore, the ISG did not investigate boarder act

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Moridineas]

Troll.

1) US did not give them chemical weapons. Supporting Saddam Hussein as a catspaw vis-a-vis Iran is completely different that your twisted interpretation of events (and falsification of events).

2) It was a screw up, no doubt. I just thought you'd like to know though, the proper spelling really is Iraq, not Irak. In Arabic it's spelled Alef Lam Ayn Rayn Alef Qaf Ya TaaMarbuta. So if anything it should be al-'Iraqiyyah. There's not reason for the Qaf to ever be transliterated as a K--it just doesn't make sense, the letter Kef is a K, the letter Qaf is close to a q. So it really should be Iraq.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fjandr]

>>>UN still didn't buy into the 'proof'.

>>You mean, France, Russia and Germany didn't buy into it. And, um, perhaps that might just have been because Saddam was buying them off with oil

>That argument may have worked before the now-evident fact that Saddam had nothing.

What in that exchange has to do with bluffing? If you mean Saddam, he claimed he had none from the start. Time has so far born out the truth of his statements. It's not a bluff when you tell the truth, even if you know another party won't believe you. If you mean a party other than Saddam was bluffing, by all means enlighten me. Maybe it's something completely obvious that I'm missing...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SuperBigGulp]

I agree the the size of the invasion force was probably close to the "right" size. However, I think all of the same issues we dealt with (badly) in Iraq would need to be addressed by anyone who wanted to act against NK. Could an invading force be in Pyongyang in a week or two? Probably. Could that same size force hold it indefinately? Probably not. Will the NK population rise up and support us? Maybe, but proabably not. There are two generations of people who haven't known freedom, and even if they don't like the current management one would expect them to follow the status quo since they don't have much of a comparison.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Gauchito]

Man, North Korea is a huge problem for another reason as well. What the hell do you do with all the people? They have known no other place than North Korea, have no concept of what the rest of the world is like, and have been trained they're whole life to worship the leader and to hate it's neighbors and the US. Even if you do invade, imagine the kind of insurgency you'd have to be fighting over there after the war!

How, also, do you replace a government's like Kim's? Saddam's was hard enough, and this one is much, much more oppressive. When you suddently take away the only system that those undernourished, unskilled, and worst of all, institutionalized people have known, people that have never learned to fend for themselves... Wow, it's a huge task. That kind of damage will take a lot more commitment to fix than Iraq. I definitely don't think Bush is up to it (he screwed up so many times, and so unnecessarily, in Iraq, that I've lost any faith in his nation-building capabilities).

What happens if they are reunited with the South? How different are those two people after 60 years apart? Look at how poorly East Germany was integrated with West Germany, and then imagine how much worse it will be for South Korea, a country poorer than West Germany, yet with a bigger economic/educational gap to fill.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[nshravan]

No. I think YOU are missing the point. You should start looking beyond the american economy being hurt when there's a nuke bomb placed in japan or taiwan. Give a fuck about people's lives for gods sake.
Its ok if millions of people die as long as you can pay $2 per gallon. Stop sermonizing here if you cant relate to a global view.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Xtravar]

How about letting an international body figure out when intervention is needed and deploy international troops in that case (UN anyone?).

Rwanda. Despite the UN swearing to intervene in genocide after what happened during WW2, everyone sat with their thumbs up their asses during the genocide in Rwanda. They merely refused to refer to it as genocide. Nobody wanted to commit troops or funds, and now they all say "sorry" and pretend to feel guilty.

I'm not justifying unilateral decisions of the US, but sometimes unilateral decisions are necessary, no matter which country.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

Buahahahahaha! That is just such a PERFECT example the bullshit basis for the war! Let me make your case a little more clear:

Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "kodak photo media," enough "to produce . . . a half million images of kiddyporn."

Once you drop the total FICTION about anthrax, all you are really citing is "650 kilograms of bacterial growth media". And you take the rediculous position that that is somehow damning. Your local hospital probably has almost that much bacterial growth media. Countless food and other inductries use vastly more than that much bacterial growth media. Hell, stop by an ICE CREAM plant and ask how much agar (bacterial growth media) they have on hand. I bet it's more than 650 kilograms.

"Oil for Food" program

Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!

Citing Oil for Food is nothing but FUD and PROPAGANDA to discredit opposition. Oil for Food involved a few of people in a handful of countries. Fine, lets assume all objections from the involved countries really WERE nothing but curruption and sour grapes. That does NOT explain why in VIRTUALLY EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH there was majority opposition.

83% of Germans now have a worse view of the US. Fine, blame it on Oil for Food curruption.
81% of the French, Fine, blame it on Oil for Food curruption.
What about 71% of Canadians reporting a worse oppinion of the US? They weren't involved in Oil for Food.
How about 71% in the Netherlands?
And 78% in Mexico?
And Spain and Brazil and Italy and Argentina and on and on? And almost 2/3rds of people in the UK? You know, our biggest ally Britan? How the hell do you explain such overwhelming opposition even from our biggest ally?

And when looking at those percentages, remember that something like 71% of people with a negative oppinion actually translates into something like 20% neutral and like 9% support.

And I can explain that overwhelming global opposition. Outseide the US the news accurately reported that all of our so-called evidence was bogus. The Yellowcake Uranium story? Our own intelligence agencies had already investigated and discredited the reports. The Aluminum Tubes was a total fiction. You know, the tubes which where supposedly for uranium enrichment? Tubes our own enrichment experts said could not be realistically used for that purpose? Tubes wich exactly matched existing conventional rocket hardware. Tubes which were anodized (which the administration claims was evidence they were not rocket tubes), which in fact would have had to have been machined to remove the anodization before they could be used for uranium processing. Machine and anoddization removal which would have made the walls to thin and weak and would have caused them to explode in such usage.

In the US the news coverage was all about the administration spewing vacuous comments like "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and uncritical reporting of supposed evidence like the aluminum tubes. The rest of the world got to hear accurate reports and experts (including US experts) ripping apart the administrations claims.

If you actually want to learn the FACTS, the single best collection would be the US sentate intelligence reports. You know, the republican controlled senate? Not only did they cover this bogus evidence, but they also conclude that Saddam orded the destruction of all WMD's and shutdown of all such programs, that he not only complied in an effort to get the sanctioned lifted but that he actually hoped to eventually restor positive relations with the US. Remember, the US has a history of being quite generous to politically convient dictators. We had in the past SUPPORTED Saddam because he ran practically the only secular government in the mid-east. In particular he supported Saddam and Iraq as a political counterweight to the fundamentalist

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[HiThere]

Iraq was invaded because we were pretty certain that it DIDN'T have WMD. At least not in any significant numbers (and ONE nuke is significant).

If I were North Korea, I wouldn't consider disarming either. Iraq is an example of what happens when you do.

Do you believe otherwise? It would be nice to see some proof, or even strong evidence, that I'm wrong. But the CIA told the executive office (I'm not certain it was the president) that "Iraq is no danger to anyone who doesn't come within thier borders" months before we attacked, *claiming* fear of WMD. Not exactly a high point in honesty. (There MAY be, or have been, good reason. I haven't heard anything convincing, however. [Yes, the guy in charge was a vile, evil, etc., but he wasn't the only one, or even the worst, leading a country.])

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

I think the intelligence experts of most countries knew that Saddam DID have WMSs.

Well yeah, well all know for a fact that he did once upon a time have WMDs. We know for a fact that once upon a time he used chemical weapons on his own people.

But we aren't talking about "once upon a time". We are talking about whether he had WMDs during the inspections and whether he had WMDs as grounds for war. We are talking about whether or not Saddam had ordered all WMD's destroyed and had ordered all such programs shut down.

The US Senate intelligence committee's conclusion was that Saddam had indeed ordered all WMD's destroyed and all programs shut down. That there were no WMD's during the inspections at all. That there were no WMD's or WMD programs as grounds for war. That at the time there was no credible evidence Saddam had retained any WMDs. Go ahead, read the Senate report.

As for "most countries", they have been saying all along that there was no credible evidence that Saddam retained any WMDs. However I'm quite sure they all now have extensive files on the disinformation that the US spewed as grounds for war. The US's own investigations had already repeatedly discredited all aspects of the Yellowcake uranium story when the administration used it as "evidence". The US's own enrichment experts had already determined that the aluminium tubes were totally unsuitable for uranium enrichment. It was all a sham.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[heeeraldo]

the third generation of the Taipedong (sp?) missile is actually able to hit the West Coast. The guidance system is pretty bad, and they're just as likely to hit Vancouver as they are to hit Portland, but the capability is there.

This from my international relations professor; weirdly enough we were discussing this in class yesterday.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Suicyco]

When exactly did reforming foreign nations become the goal of the United States (ie. your "civilized" nations)

So you've talked to people. So what. Ever been there? Ever been anywhere you supported attacking? Why are you so quick to call for invasion? How exactly did NK threaten you or your way of life? The US et. al. are the ones making threats, attacking pathetic countries like Iraq, etc.

Do you honestly think the US, and whoever wishes to come along, could succeed in invading and conquering North Korea? What insane drivel. The modern military machines of ALL first world nations cannot achieve such as task, as they are not geared towards that. It is impossible for one modern mechanized nation to conquer another in this day and age, period. The US attacking North Korea would be the beginning of the end, it would likely launch a global catastrophe the likes of which we have never seen. Why? Because you think they should have the right to view porn on the internet? What, they have starving people, so lets bomb them? Maybe we should TRADE with them. Have normal, civilized relations with them. Or would you rather breed another generation of guerilla fighters bent on making war against the agressor who uses its economic might to starve your family? (err, I meant "terrorists.")

You, sir, are an insane war mongering maniac.

BTW, how many ounces of food ration does the US government give to the starving homeless in its own country?

Satellite TV, radio, internet, what a fucking wack job you are. Jesus. Ever seen the gas chamber at San Quention? Ever been to gitmo?

Civilized....

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

By circumstances I meant releasing the results of the study before they normally would, in order to coincide with the election. That seems to imply that the researchers had a political bias, which makes their research suspect. The scientific method has no room for politics (just ask Pres. Bush, right).

As an engineer, when I say order of magnitude I mean a difference of approximately 10x. In other words, 15,671 would be an order of maginitude of 10^5 while 100,000 would be an order of magnitude of 10^6, with the difference being a single order of magnitude. That's the engineering way, so I guess there might be others, too.

Basically, statistics can say whatever people want them too. Each side of an issue can and does distort things to indicate what they want to imply. To be honest, it's the same deal with WMD's in Iraq. The intelligence can be twisted to support either side. As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their missile tech probably isn't good enough to hit the continental United States 'but' is sufficient to damage the American Economy."

It's a sad day when an attack that will kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people is feared for it's potential economic damage.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[HiThere]

Even people who hate their current government will usually rally against an invader. Think baboons swarming a leopard. The big baboon won't be involved in the attack, the attackers will be young males with low status. And they certainly don't like being oppressed. But they'll defend anyway.

In cases like this, ideology can go take a flying leap, people are acting on something more basic.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Term:
"Preemptive War"

Definition:
Premeditated, unprovoked initiation of hostilities on a non-hostile country.

You cannot *prevent* war by starting one. That's like trying to prevent a riot by whipping the populace into a frenzy and sending them out to destroy property.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[HiThere]

Yes. But the "However, assuming no other country decides to get in on the nuclear war" strikes me as a bit unlikely. That's just too close to the border with China. Think China, for reasons which seem to it quite justifiable, taking over Mexico. The US would be *quite* unlikely to stay out.

Well, Mexico is really unfair...it's more like Baja California or the gulf cost of Mexico (right below Texas). Still, just remember how upset we were when Cuba went communist. Not even "was taken over by Russia", but just went communist. Castro initially would have preferred to ally himself with the US rather than with Russia, but we wouldn't hear it. So then he turned to Russia. O, we were upset. We came within, as I understand it, 30 seconds of WW III. (It could have been 30 minutes...but that's not the way I remember it.)

With that in mind, consider China's likely reaction.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason why South Korea is attempting to MOVE thier Capital. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. If NK marches south... Seoul can be leveled before the war even really starts.

As a side note, the push to move the South Korean capital wasn't a military one. If that was the goal, they'd have put it at Busan (a more easily defendible city in the far south which was never taken by the communists). Instead, they picked a region near Daejon -- closer to the middle of the country, but still not all that far south of Seoul.

The drive for relocating the capital comes from the liberals (who are much softer on the north), and specifically the Uri party which only recently got control of both the Presidency and the legislature. It's for economic reasons, to promote a more even development in the country, instead of focusing everything on overpriced, overcrowded Seoul. It's also been more or less killed by the (conservative controlled) Constitutional Court which declared Seoul's status as the capital city to be an "unwritten Constitutional clause" and thus requiring an amendment to the constitution to change. Such an amendment has no chance in happening since the projected costs of relocation have soured public opinion. They're trying some compromise by moving some offices out there, but Seoul will remain the capital for the foreseeable future.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. for an idea of the scale and manpower problems the inspectors faced, imagine searching an entire golf course for a wedding ring.

given three people and four hours.

while there's armed guards and a barbed wire fence around the 8th tee, where you're prevented from going in until a golf cart rolls up and takes away a few boxes."

Sure, but since we invaded the golf course with an entire police department, we have ransacked every square inch of the golf course, and still not found that wedding ring. In fact, we're now claiming that we didn't invade the golf course for any reason except that the owner was a cheap bastard who didn't treat his employees nicely.

What ever happened to that wedding ring? Oh, that's right. We never actually *cared* about a wedding ring, we wanted to give raises to the employees. So sorry that we've had to shut down the entire business for several months, and the employees are now homeless and living on the street.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[HiThere]

You are right. I haven't seen convincing evidence of *ANY* reason that we had to attack Iraq.

OTOH, consider that even now the drums are being beaten to get us to attack Iran. I'm sure that new evidence as to why this is imperative will soon surface. And Iran is still a shambles. And so is Afganistan.

If I believed in an anti-Christ, I know who my candidate would be. "..shall show great signs and wonders so that, if it were possible, he shall decieve the very elect."

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[HiThere]

What causes you to believe the justifications that you are offered by Bush?

Do you believe his promises during the election campaign?
If so, why?
If not, why do you believe that WMDs had anything to do with the invasion?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ChrisPee]

Recent history shows the North Koreans could launch a successful strike on every garage and driveway in America...by detonating a suitcase bomb in Baghdad.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Duhavid]

There was at least an order of magnitude more dollars in trade with England than with Germany. So, officially, we were neutral, but the support was not equal. Also, Germany was under a distance blockade ( illegal, by the terms of the Hague treaty of 1907 ) against Germany from the very start. That blockage effectively prevented American goods from being shipped to Germany. No outrage over this limitation was ever really heard.

As the other sibling ( at the time, anyway ) pointed out, the US cared a great deal about WWII before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. In addition to the already pointed out lend lease, we leased Britain 50 old destroyers in return for bases ( and having those bases be US meant that they could stop or reduce the garrisons thereon ). We patrolled the Atlantic out to the midpoint to aid England, and if memory serves we lost a destroyer and sunk one German submarine during that period.
Technically, you are correct, we did not enter either of those wars on moral outrage. But we did involve ourselves beyond pure neutrality in both cases.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Pentagram]

It's worth pointing that the study was published in the Lancet, one of the world's most respected journals and hence went through a very intense peer review. The 100,000 estimate was also based on some conservative assumptions, such as excluding a data point in Falluja.

Of course, it's only a rough estimate but it's the only attempt at a scientific count so far.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Vaystrem]

I don't normally respond to this sort of thing but I'll bite.

First, I am a HEALTH researcher. It is my job on a daily basis to try and find ways to save lives and improve the quality of life for the developing world.

Second, I am a Canadian, but the decision making process of political elites within the United States is fairly clear.

Third, I just got back from an interesting but sometimes depressing Military and Strategic Studies Conference. Much of the policy discussion surround such issues was this blunt and cared that little about the lives which would be impacted by their proposals.

Is it horrible - absolutely. I abhor the loss of human life, but the fact of the matter is that policy decisions regarding such issues are made on the depressing argument I just made all the time.

70k people were killed in the Iranian earthquake last year - do you care? Did you remember?

Thousands of people die daily from AIDS, TB, Malaria, Typhoid, the list goes on and on. Do you care? Did you donate?

"Stop sermonizing here if you cant relate to a global view."

I can relate to a global view, the sad thing is that much of the world cannot. How much coverage has the Tsunami received in the media in the last week or so? The flow of information ensures that a 'truly' global view is very difficult.

Lives matter more than $ but that is not reflected in higher level policy. This is horrible and tragic and depressingly a Stalin quote is quite applicable "A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic." (Apologies if its slightly altered)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[gbdc]

However, what would invasion achieve in reality?

You will realize that invasion is hopelessly ineffective either for improving the lives of people there or for satisfying the American national prides, if you know ANY history of Korea as a nation. For example, Did you know that Korea has fought again near 1000 invasions in ~5000 years of history, and still survived as independent nation (though split in two)?

Believe me, I feel for the poor souls in North Korea more than you do. (I'm Korean myself, living in Canada)

But, your typical American response of 'I am so righteous' simply disgusts me.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US assistance to Britain before Pearl Harbour was paid for. Partly in loans, partly in political capital - i.e. the promised dismantling of the British Empire which began immediately after the end of the war.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ralphclark]

In the US, you don't get to know what goes on at Guantanamo. That's why it's at Guantanamo in the first place. You need to try getting your news from someplace else than US media. You won't get balance any other way.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[BostonGunNut]

Sounds just like Cananda....

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[BostonGunNut]

The Holocost is "disputed" by some as well. Don't believe everything that you see on the internet....

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

your American bullshit propaganda machine?

I'd just like to point out that NASA is in on this "propaganda machine". Assuming you can read a map and locate North and South Korea I suggest you take a look here. North Korea is a black hole. They have the third largets standing army on earth, and supporting that army devours about 30% of their entire gross national production. That is a STAGGERING percentage drain on any economy. And it explains why an appaling fraction of their population starved to death over the last several years. It's not propaganda. North Korea really is insanely isolationist and selfdelusional.

The really ugly part is that it's a really intractable situation. North Korea is a handgrenade and any attempt to deal with North Korea primarily involves tip-toeing around hoping it doesn't go off. I'm certainly not suggesting an invasion, that *would* immeadiately set off the handgrenade bigtime. Even without their nukes they have enough artillary to level the South Korean capital in a matter of minutes. They have the world's third largest army (behind China and the US) entrenched in one of the biggest and deepest tunnel systems in the world. They could sweep across South Korea faster than we could deploy even a single unit to the area.

We have a few thousand American soldiers deployed along that border. You want to know why? They certainly aren't there to fight. If North Korea decided to move across the border that handfull of American troops wouldn't do squat, they'd be killed by artillary in a matter of moments. So why are they there? They are deployed on a "tripwire" mission. A human tripwire. If North Korea were to attemt to cross the line and invade South Korea they would first be slaughtering thousands of Americans. Their purpose there is not to fight, their purpose there is to DIE if North Koerea attacks South Korea. And if North Korea slaughters thousands of Americans peacefully sitting on defensive duty that automatically warrants and commits the US to a full blown war against the agressor. A full blown war to defend South Korea.

Thousands of Americans who's sole mission is pure sacrificial death, for the purpose of ensuring the defence of South Korea against invasion.

If you think any comments painting North Korea as ugly or insane is just propaganda then you don't know anything about North Korea. And if you think there is any way to handle North Korea other than doing nothing and praying the problem goes away on it's own then you're either a fool or far more intelligent than me.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[rewt66]

Are you asserting that things are better in North Korea than they are at Guantanamo? If so, give some sources, don't just complain that I get my info from US media. (As it happens, I get probably the majority of my news from the US media, but certainly not all of it.)

And if you're not asserting that conditions are better in North Korea, well, you may have a valid point about the US media not giving a clear picture of what goes on in Guantanamo, but you aren't answering my (grandparent) post at all...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

It's a domestic issue that no other country has the right to interfere with. If the leader wants to torture his people it's his choice. It does not affect the rest of the world.

Unless it's copyright infringment, in which case it does affect the rest of the world and Something Must Be Done to end it.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Keebler71]

Interesting you point this out because one of the reasons the US intelligence agencies believed Iraq did have WMDs is because Saddam was similarly bragging that he had such weapons (at least to his insiders). Apparently, while denying to the inspectors, he was telling his inner circle that he had a weapons program - most likely to maintain order amoung his military leaders so they wouldn't buckle under a US attack thinking their boss had an ace in the hole.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[archivis]

Tactical nukes are generally smaller, and/or closer to the ground. Thus, less fallout.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

what does "get over your self ass hole" mean? It doesn't make any kind of sense.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/10 07 04nothreat.htm

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Shihar]

I can't imagine what they hope to accomplish by this new announcement, other than to perhaps go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

The real threat of North Korea is probably pretty close to what you say. When the USSR was about to dissolve, some military minded people considered invading West Germany and going out with a bang instead of letting the state collapse. Now, the thing to understand that is that the USSR was thankfully run by a ruling party that was big enough to nix truly insane ideas (like nuking the US and invading West Germany). By the time the USSR was getting ready to break up, the old way of having a single all powerful leader was already well on the way out.

The problem with North Korea is that North Korea is ruled by a man who is by all accounts truly insane. Further, he rules with absolute authority. To make matters worse, the North Korean people are brainwashed to a level that we can't even begin to appreciate. Read any travel log to North Korea or any true story that takes place in North Korea. You will hear one thing over and over and over again; the people are totally brainwashed. You raise through the ranks with your ability to shut out reality and tote the party line.

Now, you have an ugly situation. You have a man who is by all accounts totally insane. You have a group of people that are brainwashed enough to follow whatever our he gives. Now, this guy has a few nukes. Mix in a dissolving nation that could collapse at any moment, and you have an ugly situation in the making made worse because the guy at the helm can't be trusted to think rationally.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[jbridge21]

He was contained. His power and danger was very limited. They recognized this. Bush and company didn't.

No, it's worse than that. They did realize it, then when they decided to invade, they simply turned around and said the other thing. Colin Powell on 24.feb.2001:

"The sanctions exist ... for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. ... And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ProgressiveCynic]

This particular one was disputed by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, and while I hardly believe everything they say without checking facts they are also pretty far from a random internet blogger.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.

What proof do you need? A mushroom cloud! It is clear that these people need to be "liberated" immediately.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Eminence]

Could that same size force hold it indefinately? Probably not.

Well, they have one huge advantage over Iraq - the South Korea, with its strong economy and well-organized and trained military. They are well capable of rebuilding the North economically and probably also socially. They are probably not capable, however, of defeating the North militarily on their own.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you didn't notice the oil companies posting record profits the last couple of years? I hear Haliburton's not doing too bad either. If you thought the benefits were going to be passed to you, well, all I can say is "PWNED".

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Eminence]

Believe me, I feel for the poor souls in North Korea more than you do. (I'm Korean myself, living in Canada)

But, your typical American response of 'I am so righteous' simply disgusts me.

I don't know if an invasion is the best course of action. I was writing in the context of recent invasion of Iraq and threats against Iran, which are based first on those countries producing or having WMD and their human rights record. Undeniably, North Korea is much worse in both cases.

But, since you are Korean and you therefore know the history & culture of your country best - what would you advise? What you think should be done to help the people of North Korea?

It's not an irony, I'm honestly asking you what you think. And if I sounded "righteous", I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the U.S. gave the chemical weapons to Iraq or not. I do know that Donald Rumsfeld served as a military advisor to Saddam Hussein, while said weapons were being used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Missles are not the only way to get a bomb to the U.S. Boats and planes work just fine, with suitably suicidal crews.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[DunbarTheInept]

There were rumors/stories about the Nazis exterminating Jews, but nobody entertained the notion of a war until Germany invaded Poland.

You have your timeline wrong. The mass exterminations at Auschwitz began well after the war began. All you need to see to realize that is to know your basic geography, and for the hard of thinking I'll mention this explicitly, Auschwitz is IN POLAND.

US didn't care about WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

False. You are confusing "care about" with "be at war over". The US began donating war supplies to UK before Pearl Harbor. It never donated supplies to Germany. Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor was directly due to the US's refusal to trade crucial war supplies (especially oil) with Japan unless Japan backed out of China, and Japan's belief that the US's posturing with the pacific fleet (which is WHY it was moved out to Pearl Harbor in the first place instead of its normal home base at San Francisco) was no joke and a threat that needed to be removed. The source for this? Winston Churchil's history of WW2. Winston Chruchil - NOT some US leader, NOT some US fanatic with a reason to distort facts in the US's favor, but a well known British egotist who took many opportunities in that same series of books to brag about how much the UK is responsible for winning that war, and for taking a stand being the member of the allies that was in from the very beginning to the very end. Even HE gave credit to the US for caring about events and taking sides with the UK long before doing so officially.

You don't enact Lend-Lease with someone just to get favorable trade. Just the opposite. It's an economic drain. You do it because you agree with their cause and want to help out a bit.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[DunbarTheInept]

Lend-lease, despite its name, was never paid back. It was never expected to be either. It was a way for FDR to sell the idea to isolationists.

The dismantling of the British Empire came from movements INSIDE the British Empire.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What the heck are you talking about? Bill Clinton would regularly order the bombing of Iraqi assets on a whim damn near. Bill Clinton's adminitsration bombed radar facilities and launched punitive strikes for ten plus years on Iraq. Of course when he does it it's ok because hes a socialist like you so his shit does not stink. What a bunch of hypocritical pinkos. Many people believed wrongly that Saddam had WMDs because he was bluffing that he did. He believed that the west would only respect power. He believed if we thought he had WMDs we would not attack. He was wrong. He also came forward in the final days before the invasion through contacts in Lebanon and more or less offered to be our lap dog. We turned him down. So those of you that think Gulf 2 was purely about oil are not very well informed we could have had the oil with his blessing. Hell we did have the oil cheap through the UN oil for food program.

Heres the thing GW really wanted I think to spread Democracy and stop all this bomb Iraq once a month routine (status quo as it were). I am not sure that it was a good idea to this day. I personally thought this was a very dangerous adventure to get involved in. Plus democracy in the middle east could result in another theocracy like Iran. It would have been much simpler to have Saddam as a lap dog. Nation creating is a very dangerous business. But even your pinko buddy William Jefferson Clinton stated that if it resulted in a democratic pluralistic Iraq then the war was worth the cost. I am not sure I agree only time will tell.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Minna Kirai]

The strategy was sound, but the forces used to execute it were too small in number.

No, the strategy and force size were both adequate for the stated mission objectives. Those objectives were to destroy any major WMD and remove Saddam Hussein from office.

However, it turned out later that the real objectives were to create a safe democracy in Iraq, and that task requires a far higher level of infantry presence. Maybe if George W. Bush hadn't sworn in his presidential campaign that the US military would not be used for nation building, there might've been some more planning for that aspect of the objective. (Or at least an acknowledgement of that task)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Fallingcow]

I don't believe that leaving large pockets of enemy resistance behind one's front lines is at all helpful if one believes that the enemy may have nukes, nasty nerve gas, or at least some more minor chemical weapons. Of course, I don't believe that Bush actually thought they had those, and I'd cite their use of a strategy that could have left their supply lines and reserve units vulnerable to chemical or nuclear bombardment as non-conclusive, but substantial, support of that position.

I agree that Bush would probably rather not be "nation building" in Iraq. But then, who would?

In my view, he either slightly underestimated the difficulty of stablizing Iraq, but was aware that it would be time-consuming and costly and deemed the high costs to be worth it to attain whatever goals he was actually working toward--what those were, aside from the rather minor and good-press-oriented goal of removing Saddam, we may never know for sure--or else he is truly incompetent and thought the place would be A-OK as soon as we kicked out nasty ol' Saddam. I've yet to decide which of these two theories is more likely to be true.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[lucabrasi999]

And, what makes you think I even voted for Clinton? Did I ever express any sentiment in favor of Clinton in my post?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[randallpowell]

What about possible articles that try to make Shrub look bad (he does it himself)? I prefer a mix so I can get the info and not opinions. Too bad opinions make up the news now.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[ralphclark]

There are conservatives of all types outside the US, and so much of the media outside the US is also heavily slanted toward the establishment - just not so ubiquitously as it is within the US. News sources inside the US are about as bad as it gets for political reportage. Because they are used to spread misinformation and disinformation instead of plain information, they actually have the effect of making you less well informed than you were when you were merely ignorant. You'd be better off not watching at all.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is always interesting when a political party, or people who belong to a political party, and it really doesn't matter which one...they are all the same...can't admit a fuck up. Instead, it's well everybody else thought so too. The FACT is that the weapons were not there. Period. To try and justify a mistake by saying everybody else made the same mistake is just plain LAME.

GWB fucked up. Period. I honestly...and I am not trolling...can't fathom how anybody in their right mind can't see that. We invade Iraq based on WMD. Here is a country that says "Hey fucker! I have WMD. And I have a real problem with you!" What do we do? Nada. And you can't see that the entire premise that we attacked Iraq is bullshit? Where is your logic? These boys can make the terrorists look like fucking Barbie you dumb bastards.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

We give a LOT of food rations out. It's called food stamps you cockbite.

Have you ever been to gitmo?

Honestly, people like you are so fucking stupid it amazes me. nothing but bitch and moan.. waa waaa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, all these people that keep telling us that we are righteous have no solutions.. just more of the same old bitch and moan. They will sit in their homes until the flood waters bust down there door, then wonder how it got sooooooo bad.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[stor]

Civilized world should do something about it if it is to be worthy that term.

Right. Let's give 'em Democracy: let's give it to 'em good!

I must admit since allied soldiers have been in Iraq, everything's coming up roses and fucking lollipops.

Cheers
Stor

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alaska Jack]

You know, I was getting all ready to point out how wrong you are on this, but really, what's the point? I mean, if in two minutes of Googling I can find a dozen different cases of non-Americans warning of Saddam's WMDs, surely you can too.

It does make me wonder, though. I mean, don't you have a little voice that tells you "Hmm, maybe I better check my confident assertations before I potentially make myself look like a fool in front of thousands of people?"

The definitive account of Saddam's WMD maneuvering is "The Threatening Storm," by Clinton's former defense advisor Ken Pollack. But I don't suggest you read it. I mean, no one else here has, and that doesn't stop THEM from spouting off, either.

- Alaska Jack

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[nathanm]

And actually even the claim that Saddam gassed his own people in the 80s has been disputed.

Jude Wanniski (whose website you linked to), is quite alone in denying that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds. Slate has a good article that discusses the issue. Besides, several of his claims are clearly false:

To begin with there were never any victims produced.

A quick Google image search for Halabja belies that claim. There are numerous photos of the immediate after-effects of the attack. More recently, there was a study to investigate the long term effects of the chemical exposure. The victims of the attack suffer from high rates of respiratory problems, cancer, birth defects, neurological disorders, and skin and eye problems. Maybe part of the reason he claims victims can't be found is because they're some of the 300,000 bodies discovered in mass graves.

The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The reports of the chemical bombing were not just from Kurds who crossed into Turkey. Some of the pictures linked above were from journalists flown in from Tehran the next day.

Wanniski even mentions the oft repeated myth: that at the very least our State Department gave a "green light" to Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait in August 1990. According to this article from the Christian Science Monitor, that myth has been debunked by no less than Iraq's former Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz.

It may well have been Iran, and in either case it happened on a battlefield.

It is highly doubtful Iran was behind the attack. In the first place, their troops and allies were the ones attacked (see here). Secondly, there is no evidence of Iranian use of the type of chemicals at Halabja (see here).

In addition, although chemical weapons were used multiple times in the Iran-Iraq war, the reason the Halabja attack sticks out is precisely because it was not a battlefield. At the time, Halabja was a city with a population of about 80,000 which had just recently came under control of Iran and their Kurdish allies. Many of the approximately 5000 victims of that particluar attack were civilians. Most of the published photos were of women and children killed, for the simple reason that news media thrives on sensationalism.

We've managed to kill 100,000 civilians with our advanced "smart" bombs - is it surprising that primitive mortars would kill 5,000?

First, the claim of 100,000 dead is based on an extrapolation from a survey. I'd take the 100,000 figure with a grain of salt until a more extensive survey is done. There is a Slate article that dissects their methodology. A reliable number of civilians deaths reported can be found at the Iraq Body Count (IBC) website. As of Feb 10, 2005, they count less than 18,000 civilians reported killed.

Second, most of the deaths are not from our precision guided munitions, the so-called "smart bombs." In fact, most of them

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[nshravan]

Nice repartee. I admire that you work everyday in trying to improve the life of people in the developing world.
But my point of contention with you was your pov with respect to the situation in case nukes were used. Should we really be worrying about the economy at that point of time. should we really be worried that we wont be getting faster computers bcos the fabs in taiwan are levelled. im a liberal but a realist too.
i understand ur point with respect to the hypocrisy that exists in media nowadays but being intelligent ourselves, we should be able make up our own mind when it comes to calamitis like this. my generatin hasnt faced anything like the second world war. but what you explained in ur original post is that equivalent for our generation. my point is to prevent that from happening we need to look at the situation sensitively from a cultural and not just a economic standpoint.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[CaptainAvatar]

Good question! There are a few examples that spring to mind - probably most notably after WWI, Germany, Turkey and the successor states of Austria-Hungary were not occupied by the victors for any significant length of time. In fact, I'm not sure they were occupied at all (but I'm a bit fuzzy on that) - of course, they agreed to an armistice just before they were actually conquered (as opposed to staring defeat in the face). You could also point to more recent American precedents - like the invasion of Panama in 1989: they installed a friendly government and got out quickly. Even Rome would do this sometimes: in places like Armenia that they didn't think it worth trying to control themselves, they would install a client king to do their bidding. Most wars these days are fought over pretty limited aims, so outright wars of conquest are relatively rare; the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a notable exception. But you are probably right, over the longer term.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[gbdc]

My apologies if I misunderstood your intentions.

Having said that, I believe that the solution is to accept the right of North Korean govt to exist, and start massive economic aids and trades to rebuild its economy. The eventual prosperity in North Korea will triger it to improve its democracy and human rights from themselves.

Suggesting that NK could be prosperous may sound funny. However, South Korea was poorer in 1950's and 60's than the current NKorea, but it has built ~10th biggest economy and one of the most democratic government within 3-4 decades. If SK did it, NK can do it too, especially with SK aids.

Remember how China began to change? It didn't start from military or political perspectives. It started from economic changes, and economic prosperity is the critical ingredient that must be in place before things like democracy and human rights can be properly advocated. I know China still doesn't guarantee proper human rights, but China is so much better than it used to be before its economic boom.

South Korea already has taken approach under the name of 'Sunshine Policy' US should adopt something similar because this policy already returned significant results since it began several years ago.

For example, a new joint economic cooperative area opened in a North Korean border city of GaeSung, and hundreds of South Korean companies are dying to invest in the area to take advantage of cheap but intelligent North Korean labour force. Also, many many thousands of S.Korean tourists visited North Korea.

If this trend of cooperation continues, NK will soon have no choice but to continue to open itself more as its economy slowly integrates with that of South Korea. This will make an immediate impact on the people of North Korea.

Thus, if America really wants to remove the North Korean 'threat' then it should invest a lot of its capital and allow trading with North Korea. (How'bout removing NK from the terrorist country and allow trading?)

However, it is crystal clear that Bush will never allow it. I don't think Bush will invade NK because even he is not stupid enough to offend SK, Japan, and China all at the same time. However, it saddens me to know that Bush will be directly responsible for delaying the integration process between SK and NK.

I understand that this will be a long process. But, there can be no quick fix for such a delicate situation. Slow and steady wins the game, as history has shown us.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[gbdc]

coward, aren't you?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

> you are such a moroun

Was that mistake intentional or are you functionally illiterate?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just trying to point out that evil is evil, no matter whether you run a government "for the people" or a flat-out tyranny.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

But my point of contention with you was your pov with respect to the situation in case nukes were used. Should we really be worrying about the economy at that point of time. should we really be worried that we wont be getting faster computers bcos the fabs in taiwan are levelled

Dear McFly,

The economy DOES matter in that case. HELLO, if Japan/Tawian/Another Major US trade parter gets destroyed the economic fallout WILL CAUSE HUMAN SUFFERING ALL OVER THE WORLD. It's not just about 'getting faster computers bcos the fabs in taiwan are levelled' it's about businesses going under, which leads to less jobs, which leads to the human suffering you say you care about so much but don't have the vision to comprhend.

The military DOESNT look at things from a humanitarian viewpoint..they can't...they would never get their jobs done.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

North Korea is a black hole.

so .. the humanitarian thing to do would be to let them finish their reactor.

but no: America is a millitant police state, too. they see only the military option, and risks.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that mistake intentional or are you functionally illiterate?

If you can't tell, then perhaps it's you who is deficient.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[stinerman]

You've just stumbled upon the "ends justify the means" arguement.

Not all of us agree with your utilitarian bullshit.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

And yet, despite all your Western ire, it is still the responsibility of the North Korean people to overthrow their own repressive government.

It pleases me immensely that your depraved and endless American interventionism is being destroyed by your own domestic economic policies. Soon enough, yelling on some blog is about all an American will be able to do. An Empire runs on Human blood and never understands its own atrocities; so, we must wait for the American Empire to die.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[DarkAdonis]

Back in the day, wars were fought for territory. The invading country benefited not only from the resources on the land, but also forced labor of the native people as well as the prestige of expanding the empire.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, due to social theorists, economic trends and costly revolutions, empires no longer seemed worthwhile. However, the nations who had colonies remained close to those governments and still reaped alot of benefits from their former colonies.

I think that because of global economics and other factors, powerful nations no longer colonize or occupy weaker ones, but rather install and maintain friendly governments a nation such as the USA, its citizens, and corporations can benefit from cheaper resources, including labor.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Suicyco]

Oh, ok. We give out food stamps. To who? Go get some and let me know how it went. Find some homeless man in the 50's living out of a shopping cart, and take him to get food stamps.

I have not been to gitmo. So I won't be passing judgement on whether north korea needs to invade the US for human rights violations. Unlike the other idiots in the thread.

How am I stupid? What am I moaning about? Hmm? Its people like you who have no edumicatium or sense who propose insane things like invading north korea because they dare to feed their people, imprison their people and have a military mindset. GASP! How dare they?

Why are you AC? Why am I bothering to respond to you, I don't know. Oh well.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I would bet money your a clintonista bush basher. Unless your even more extreme (communist?) leftist Bush basher which I will concede is entirely possible.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

the humanitarian thing to do would be to let them finish their reactor

You mean so they can have electricity? The REASON North Korea is a black hole is becuase most of the population can't afford FOOD, much less TVs or lightbulbs or electricity. There's the capital city of course, that tiny white dot on the satellite map, but that's about it.

North Korea has no need for huge expensive nuclear plant for electricity. They can easily satisfy their miniscule electricty usage more cheaply and more easily with conventional power sources. The only reason they are hot for a nuclear plant is to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. And that is exactly what they've said they've done... used it to build nukes.

America is a millitant police state

A weee bit of hyperbole there. I certainly have a problem with the direction some things have been going recently, and don't even get me started on that jackass Bush, but we've haven't turned into a police state. At least not yet.

they see only the military option, and risks.

I haven't heard anyone in the administration raise any "military options" with North Korea. If I did start to hear such a thing, then yes, I'd become EXTREMELY concerned. Err... I mean above and beyond the existing disaster of the current Bush administration.

As stupid as Bush is, even I don't think he's THAT stupid. The military has been keeping an eye on North Korea for decades and they doubtless have extensive knowledge and documentation of what military action in Korea would mean. There's just no way to avoid South Korea getting flattened, short of a first strike stringing the border with simultaneuous nukes.

Now if you think that is a serious senario, that you'd wake up one moring and hear that the US launched an extensive premptive nuclear stike glassifying North Korea.... well I can at a minimum tell you that half of Americans already want Bush gone. There's no way even the other half would stand for such a thing. I don't think such an order would even be followed. "Regime change" would take on a whole new meaning.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Guppy06]

"I'd be more sorry about Guam, American Samoa,"

1. Who cares about GU and AS? They don't have any votes in Congress. After all, one of the reasons DPRK is the hellhole it is today is because the US doesn't care about what happens to all those non-voting Koreans, so what difference should US citizenship (in the case of Guam) make? We only care about ourselves; it's the American Way (TM). Otherwise we might actually give a damn about the political status of our three territories and two commonwealths.
   
   Congress and the American people didn't move to invade Iraq because of the mean and nasty things he did to Kurds and Iraqi Shia; hell, most of 'em haven't even head of the two groups. The whole "humanitarian mission" is nothing more than an excuse for a self back-pat. The Iraq invasion happened the only way it could possibly have been pulled off: by painting Iraq as a threat to us.
2. I think you meant "Northern Marianas," not "American Samoa." If DPRK could hit American Samoa, there'd be a 7th very concerned party at the talks: Australia

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Inthewire]

RYS::The law against shooting people?

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Guppy06]

"And yet, despite all your Western ire, it is still the responsibility of the North Korean people to overthrow their own repressive government. "

Ah yes, the Somebody Else's Problem argument. After all, if the US was able to rise up out of government-sponsored starvation and free their half-living bretheren from the British torture camps without any aid from France 230 years ago, anybody can do it!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Guppy06]

"It is impossible for normal people to imagine the misery of people living there...

Get your imaginations at Guantanamo."

Your analogy breaks down at the courts martial (among other places).

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

North Korea has no need for huge expensive nuclear plant for electricity. They can easily satisfy their miniscule electricty usage more cheaply and more easily with conventional power sources.

umm ... yeah .. and this is something for foreigners to decide.

the supreme arrogance of this statement belies more to the issue than the content. americans have no right to decide how any nation warms its people. north korea, being a sovereign state, should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it needs electricity, generated cheaply, to warm its citizens.

we've haven't turned into a police state.

having lived there for 15 years, i have decided that it was a police state long before i was born. just, a 'soft' one, that its citizens can barely recognize, given their predilection towards studying history and familiarity with other cultures .. oh, sorry, i mean, proclivity to tune into 'Friends' and 'Seinfeld' each and every sorry day ...

I haven't heard anyone in the administration raise any "military options" with North Korea.

Veiled threats from Condi, 'leaked' details about Pentagon war-game planning not-withstanding, right ...

the solution to the North Korea/Iran situation is simple. a world body ought to be formed to protect all peaceful use of nuclear reactors, and this should consist of a) inspectors, and b) armed forces to protect the sites. it should be a world body administered by the U.N. with the purpose of providing security and power, through nuclear reactors. a kind of 'peaceful nuke guard team', if you will, consisting of multi-national membership.

that no politician has recommended this yet, in light of all other clear evidence that it could work, means that there are vested interests at work, playing this issue for all its worth ...

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Guppy06]

Before I even begin, my disclaimer: I'm evil, self-aggrandizing, short-sighted, egotistical, and any other number of such adjectives. Don't bother telling me, I already know. I type this while twirling my moustache and will be tying yet another fair maiden to some railroad tracks after I write this.

I'm also not Korean in any sense of the word, and have never been further west than Honolulu. Most I know of the place comes from TV. Therefore, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Again, I'm already aware of this.

With that being said...

"However, South Korea was poorer in 1950's and 60's than the current NKorea,"

Um... no. They weren't outright starving, and were at least in the process of rebuilding after the long Japanese occupation.

Also, North Korea hasn't even gotten that far. The Japanese death camps never went away, they're just under new management

"but it has built ~10th biggest economy and one of the most democratic government within 3-4 decades."

... in spite of the intentions and actions of Pyongyang. DPRK is more interested in destroying the prosperity of others than building their own.

"If SK did it, NK can do it too, especially with SK aids."

You're assuming aid from ROK would actually be used as Seoul intends. That can't even be said about food aid, which goes straight to the military/party faithful (same diff). Why do you believe they'd be more egalitarian with cold, hard cash? At least with the food aid Pyongyang has to go through the trouble of finding buyers who don't mind the fact that what they're buying has "food aid" written in seventeen different languages on what's being sold.

"Remember how China began to change? It didn't start from military or political perspectives. "

So the protests in Tiananmen Square and bending over backwards to accept Hong Kong into the fold did nothing?

"South Korea already has taken approach under the name of 'Sunshine Policy' US should adopt something similar because this policy already returned significant results since it began several years ago."

Seoul's sunshine didn't stop Northern forces from firing on Southern ships recently, nor have they made the ROK government all that comfortable with the US trying to remove its troops and station them elsewhere.

"Also, many many thousands of S.Korean tourists visited North Korea"

That sounds like a lot until you realize that those "thousands" only added up when taken over the course of decades, with many more turned away at the border instead of being allowed contact with their Northern family members. Beyond the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the war and the occasional, closely-guarded "tour" group, getting into DPRK is only slightly easier than getting out.

"and hundreds of South Korean companies are dying to invest in the area to take advantage of cheap but intelligent North Korean labour force."

First off, am I the only one who's stomach turned upon reading this?

And if those companies really cared about intelligent workers from the North (and if they were able to be as productive as those in the South), then Northern expatriates in the South, with their stilted, "hick" Northern accents, would have a far easier time getting a job and living their lives than they currently have now.

"Thus, if America really wants to remove the North Korean 'threat' then it should invest a lot of its capital and allow trading with North Korea. (How'bout removing NK from the terrorist country and allow trading?)"

As I alluded to before, the Bush administration did try removing troops from Korea. Seoul wasn't very happy.

"I don't think Bush will invade NK because even he is not stupid enough to offend SK, Japan, and China all at the same time."

I think you said "offend" instead of "destroy." Northern artillery would flatten Seoul the instan

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[caswelmo]

Not to mention that it's better to have people around that like you and want to cooperate than it is to have people around that would like to see you wiped off the face of the earth.

Thanks for the insight.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

But it IS the problem of someone else. It is the problem of the North Koreans, and by association due to physical proximity, the South Koreans and China. Drawing this up as an American problem is just an Imperial argument, and like all Imperial arguments, it only supports Imperial expansion for resources and security. (Hint: America is not liked around the world due to her use of her military. Go read Kwitney's "Endless Enemies" if you don't understand.)

What happened with the US Revolution is irrelevent. If I were in America at the time, I would have shot English and French alike. It is the responsibility of a native population to overthrow their own oppressors. Period.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Guppy06]

"But it IS the problem of someone else."

Everybody has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, reguardless whether or not they happen to be "someone else."

"Drawing this up as an American problem is just an Imperial argument, and like all Imperial arguments, it only supports Imperial expansion for resources and security."

No, it is a humanitarian argument. If I were being imperialist, I'd be harping on the nukes, while also advocating the removal of, say, Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela. Posession of nuclear weapons and any intent to use them on the US is irrelevent next to the suffering of the people of the DPRK.

If anything, you're the imperialist here: you require the "What's in it for me?" question to be answered to your satisfaction, placing the primacy of the American Empire and its people before all others.

"(Hint: America is not liked around the world due to her use of her military. Go read Kwitney's "Endless Enemies" if you don't understand.)"

I really don't give a damn. Damn international diplomacy, damn complacency, damn popularity pissing contests; so long as these things are what enable this aboniable situation in the DPRK to continue, they're a part of the problem and not of the solution.

"If I were in America at the time, I would have shot English and French alike."

You missed the second of my two analogies: those in DPRK who are even suspected of wishing to rise up in arms against Pyongyang dies a long, painful death long before having any sort of opportunity. Their extended families also suffer a similar fate. Even if you were to escape such a fate, you'd be unable to physically lift your weapon to defend yourself because of extreme malnutrition. The responsibility you talk about doesn't come married to opportunity in any way, shape or form.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

When I said "North Korea has no need for huge expensive nuclear plant for electricity. They can easily satisfy their miniscule electricty usage more cheaply and more easily with conventional power sources" I was not discussing *should*, I was discussing two points of *is*. North Korea's electricity useage is minisule because as I said most of the population cannot afford FOOD, much less TVs or electricity of lightbulbs. As you presumably saw, North Korea is a black hole becuase there pretty much aren't any lightbulbs or anything else outside the small capital city. You don't need a nuclear plant to power non-existant lights. The other point - and I'll admit I am educated reasoning rather than hard numbers - is that as I said they could produce the same electricity MORE CHEAPLY and more easily with conventional powerplants. I'm not saying they shouldn't/can't build powerplants. I'm saying only rational reason to build a more expensive and complex nuclear plant is for a nuclear weapons program.

And when cosidering the relative cost using a nuclear plant, consider this: while the ultimate price per kilowatthour for nuclear plants may normally be in the same ballpark as convential plants, that is in countries with a large number of such plants and with the proper and established support infrastructure. Building and maintaining a single nuclear plant is going to signifigantly more expensive. Economies of scale would kick in if they were to build an array of nuclear plants, but (A) it is a small country and (B) millions of toasters and airconditioners to actually USE eletricity are not going to magically appear out of thin air in the forseeable future. This plant was a hugely expensive government program that needs to aquire and develop extensive expertise and hardware and infrastructure. Building the nuclear plant is simply going to be irrationally more expensive than putting up a normal powerplant. Or at least it would be irrational on a purely power-generating basis. On the other hand spending huge sums of extra money makes perfect sense to enable a nuclear weapons program.

This is not some foriegner deciding what they should do. This is someone pointing out the fact that there was no rational eletricity-generating reason to go for a nuclear plant. That you are delusional or disingenuous if you claim that it was not built for nuclear weapons purposes. And such a claim is particularly comical since North Korea has stated that that is exactly how they used it.

a world body ought to be formed to protect all peaceful use of nuclear reactors

You mean the IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency? The inspectors that North Korea refuses allow into the country? Although they don't have any sort of armed forces. I do not believe there is ANY international body that actually has any sort of armed forces of it's own. And even if such UN armed forces were established, are you suggesting military action to impose those armed forces in North Korea? North Korea intended the plant for a weapons program and North Korea used it to build nuclear weapons. The North Korean government sure as hell aren't going to invite international/foriegn armed forces in to defend the plant against itself (itself meaning the NK government) and their own weapons program.

that no politician has recommended this yet, in light of all other clear evidence that it could work

Ah yes, the UN having it's own standing army is a trivial thing and forcibly marching such a UN army into countries is a trivial thing, and the only reason the UN has never had any sort of force of its own is just because the US wants to play the North Korean issue for all it's worth.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SomeGuyFromCA]

i usually don't reply to ACs. they'll never see it, so what's the point?

especially on a story with almost 2000 comments.

but.

Sure, but since we invaded the golf course with an entire police department, we have ransacked every square inch of the golf course, and still not found that wedding ring.

except if you think that we've gone over every square inch of iraq, you're nuts. besides, the police department was sitting on one side (just one side) of the course for a month flashing their sirens, giving tv interviews, and basically doing everything but waving a "we're coming in" sign. no, wait, they did that too. there was plenty of time and warning to bury, move or destroy the ring and make the cops look like a bunch of idiotic jackbooted thugs.

In fact, we're now claiming that we didn't invade the golf course for any reason except that the owner was a cheap bastard who didn't treat his employees nicely.

well, we've been getting complaints about this guy for a long time; not nice to his neighbors either. but, you know, we haven't had anything we could really nail him on till now.

(remember how the feds finally took down capone. murder, prostitution, extortion, bootlegging and gambling and they charged him with... tax evasion.)

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

the reason you can't see lights on your pretty little map, is that there is no power. the infrastructure *is* there.

you, an american, making vast sweeping assumptions about what you think is right for the north koreans IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM. stop thinking you know best.

US hegemony is a serious, serious issue. americans fail to take any responsibility for it. you are not the guardians of the world you think you are, and you do not have the right to assume that position, all higher and mightier.

end of discussion.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SnowZero]

You've just stumbled upon the "ends justify the means" arguement.

No I didn't. Cost/benefit analysis factors in the cost to get there, not just the benefit of the eventual goal. If the end justifies the means that usually tranlates into ignoring the cost to reach a goal. Of course in reality there is no such thing as an ultimate goal, so you just have to look as far as you can reasonably predict outcomes.

Not all of us agree with your utilitarian bullshit.

During WWII, lots of people didn't want the US to attack Germany; Are you still one of them? Luckily the government operates with a much more utilitarian approach to issues. Unfortunately their relative weights on perceived benefit versus human cost is currently at odds with much of the populous.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[SnowZero]

And why do you think they are starving? Maybe it has something to do with spending more of their GDP on the military than any other nation on earth does? The have central planning with the stated policy of "military first", puting it above all else, yes even feeding the general population. So, your story is not relevant to the actual situation, which is more like the following:

Your daughter is dying in pain, and you could save her but you're busy spending the money making payments on a really nice car. I come along and say, I will provide money to save your daughter now, but you have to sell off the car. A reasonable person would accept, and then sell off the damn car they don't really need . An unreasonable person would keep the car and threaten to run people over with it unless I pay for more of their daughter's treatment.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

you, an american, making vast sweeping assumptions about what you think is right for the north koreans IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM. stop thinking you know best.

Bullshit. Go ahead, quote anywhere I did any such thing. Show me where I said what North Koreans should do. I spend almost my entire post pointing out the fact that it is economically irrational to have built a nuclear plant for eletricity reasons. That *if* they had genuinely wanted electricity they could have produced MORE electricity CHEAPER and MORE EASILY with a non-nuclear plant. I stated that they wanted they nuclear plant for a nuclear weapons program, that they in fact used it for a nuclear weapons program. I defy you to find a "should" in there anywhere. Hell, I never even said they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT build a nuclear plant or whether they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT build nuclear weapons. I merely stated that they did want to build nuclear weapons and that that was the reason they wanted a nuclear plant.

You are the one making sweeping assumptions. You are blinded by your own prejudice. You can't even read what I wrote accurately. You have this bigoted view of Americans and you're IMAGINING what you think I'm saying. You're imagining things I never said.

the reason you can't see lights on your pretty little map, is that there is no power. the infrastructure *is* there.

Riiiight. There's no electricity, hasn't been electricity, but the people there have been spending money to develop a huge install base of lightbulbs and toasters and airconditioners and electric toothbrushes. All sitting there inert just waiting for a half-dozen nuclear power plants to power them up.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

Bullshit. Go ahead, quote anywhere I did any such thing. Show me where I said what North Koreans should do.

Typically American hostile reaction when confronted with the failings of your own ego. ("Bullshit") You said:

"North Korea has no need for huge expensive nuclear plant for electricity. They can easily satisfy their miniscule electricty usage more cheaply and more easily with conventional power sources"

Who are you to make that judgement? You really think you know more about NK's power needs than they do?

Apparently, even your own government thought it was necessary for NK to have their own nuclear power .. and they even funded it.

I'm sure they know more about it than you do.

So, why don't you take your pedantic vitriol and shove it, then turn your attention to the fact that it is people like you who have given your criminal government the free leash it needs to let loose misery on the world .. shame on you!!!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Smaller means less fallout.

Closer to the gorund means more fallout.

It kind of balances out.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[CKW]

.
Yup.

And worst yet, their population is brainwashed/fearful enough that they would willingly fight to near total extinction/death against any Western invasion, even more so than Japan would have at the end of WWII had they been invaded.

I have ***no*** idea what would be the best way of dealing with them. Other than "containment" and building an anti-missile wall around them, and waiting 500 years for the rest of civilization to reach nirvana while they are still a reeking hole... then something will crack internally - maybe.

Actually I do have one idea. It involves a MASSIVE airdrop - of livestock and consumer goods. Seriously. Imagine you are a poor impoverished hard-working little North Korean, you've spent your entire life being told about the evil capitalist west - and then suddenly food and goods beyond imagine start dropping from the sky, and continue dropping from the sky for weeks and months on end.

Maybe, just maybe, you'd begin doubting the crap you'd been taught by your masters.

Of course first we'd have to wipe the NK airforce from the sky, and China would have to be on board, and we'd have to evacuate Seoul and put 5 million Western troops in SK to hold the line...

Meh, too much work. Let em rot. Personally I wouldn't mind not giving them any food and oil. I know they keep claiming that they'll go to war should the free food and energy stop, but fuck em.

It's their bed, make them lie in it.
.

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Woy]

Spending a large part of one's GDP in the military may be the only chance they have at maintaining their territorial integrity. You know how expansive the US has been latelly. Not that i defend it above feeding one's population. I am not very fond of dictatorships at all, and please don't mistake my position regarding nukes with some sort of simpathy for N. Korea.

One could also go into messy distinctions between the starving population and the decision-making governing elite. Let's just consider the government, then.

They blast their money away on weaponry, causing starvation. Then the US comes with an offer of food in exchange for abandoning the nuke program. Now they take and eat the food, but lie and keep the nukes anyway. Nasty, nasty people.

You have associated their starvation to lack of resources which were invested in the military. Now tell me ANY other sequence of decisions that could have allowed N. Korea to have a nuke program. It's not pretty, but it's their (government) only choice if they want to, well, exist.

The grey areas surrounding fooling the US for food and (keeping the) nukes, the fact that starving countries will probably be offered help, all those are things a US citizen doesn't usually come in contact with. I was born in a much poorer country and I know how wide the grey areas grow once you feel a pain in your belly. When you're on the bottom of the pit, with great enemies, you juggle a lot of ifs and hope-for's. The N. Korean government outsmarted the US, which is exactly what they must do being the underdogs.

Regarding your "sell the car" example, i believe it would become clearer if you replaced the car with a gun. We know how the US treats prisioners, so you can thing of the gun as the only thing standing between your daughter and the rape gangs. There, light!

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[Alsee]

Buahahahaha. I asked you to quote anywhere I said what North Koreans should do. And like I said you can't even read what I wrote accurately and you're imagining things I never said.

Lets review what I actually said, shall we?

I said that North Korea's electricity usage is miniscule. THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FACT. I just researched the exact figure. North Korea's electricty consumption is less than 150 watts per person. One largish lightbulb per person. As a sidenote the lionshare of that energy goes to industry or to the military or to the capital, meaning much of the population is not even connected for electricity at all. People who do not have an electric outlet in their home (or even in the entire village) obviously do not own air conditioners or toasters or electric toothbrushes or lightbulbs.

I also said that producing electricity with a conventional plant would be CHEAPER and EASIER. You certainly never disputed my reasoning that it would be cheaper, and there's no way in hell you can dispute that it would be easier.

Which brings us back to the first portion of what you quoted, that North Korea has no need of a nuclear plant for electricity. That is not telling them what they should do, that is a conclusion of motivation. If nuclear electric production is more expensive than conventional electric production then electric production was not the motivation for a nuclear plant. And again I note that you never disputed their reason for the nuclear plant was create nuclear weapons, not electricity.

If you can focus your hate-filled little mind for a moment you might just be able to recognize that I never once tried to tell North Korea what to do. I merely stated facts and stated reasoning and stated a conclusion of why they built a nuclear plant. Not a single bloody "should" or "shouldn't" anywhere. Never a single attempt to tell them what to do. Nothing but an effort to explain WHY they did what they did.

Apparently, even your own government thought it was necessary for NK to have their own nuclear power .. and they even funded it

Buahahaha! Not only can't you accurately read what I wrote, but you can't even read your own link!

According to the link the US government didn't "think it necessary" for NK to have nuclear power. NK *already had* a nuclear program of a type that specifically cranked out large quantities plutonium. The kind of program that could supply a veritable assembly line cranking out nuclear bombs one after another. According to the link the US gave NK $95 million as a frikin BRIBE to abandon that program and REPLACE it with a different design. Actually the bribe was a hell of a lot more than $95 million because it also included millions in oil and food.

Oh yes, those evil imperialist Americans paying off North Korea so they don't mass-produce Nuclear weapons and start selling them on the global market and potentially going off in YOUR country.

But heay, if you think the US is too meddlesome, FINE! Either (1) YOU bribe North Korea not to mass produce nuclear bombs, or (2) YOU set up your pet nuclear powerplant protection army like you suggested and you go to war invading North Korea to forcibly put them in place protecting the nuclear plant. Either that or (3) you tell me your preffered choice is North Korea raising the cash it desperately needs by selling some dozzen or so nuclear weapons per year on the golbal market, in which case I damn well hope the first one goes off in your back yard. Go ahead, pick 1 2 or 3. Pick any one and you have my blessing to be all high and mightly blaming the US. Until then it's the US pissing away it's own money to buy off North Korea and cover your sorry ass.

-

Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word.

[torpor]

okay, you win nazi. have fun with your straw man!

Well then..

[Ligur]

I guess I won't be renewing my sattelite TV subscribtion.
As I understand it WMD:s are only a threat if the dictator doesn't admit to having them!

Re:Well then..

[should_be_linear]

Interesting thing is that North Korea already tested missiles "Tepodong" to reach hundreds miles beyond Japan. Now they I trying to improve it to reach west coast of USA (big cities like L.A. or San Francisco). "Tepodong 2" is (by some sources) already capable of that. As opose to Iraq, this crazy asshole is *real threat*. Now, think about all stupid "orange alerts" over past few years....

Also....

[lucabrasi999]

In other news, Darth Vader is Luke's Father.

Politics is so weird. An announcement that tells us something we already knew becomes big news.

End of World

[dsginter]

North Korea? That's not how it happens!

Bargaining

[darkmeridian]

So North Korea will not be entering negotiations. Right. That *isn't* and bargaining tool, people. Stop trying to negotiate with them.

Same song, different day

[cwford]

This is par for the course with North Korea. 1. Make ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media. 2. Pull out of talks. 3. Demand concessions. 4. Get concessions. 5. Restart talks. 6. Repeat. yawn. nothing to see here.

Re:Same song, different day

[yetdog]

Mod parent up. Of course you'll get the leftists blaming Bush for this. In fact, GWB probably knows where my keys are, but he won't tell me. Bastard.

Re:Same song, different day

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Yeah, they've been doing this for the couple decades.

Add one step where they occasionally lob a missle over Japan or something just to scare people into concessions.

Re:Same song, different day

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Not entirely, this admission raises the spectre of a Japan having to develope nukes to protect themselves from a nuclear N. Korea. The thought of a nuclear Japan really ruins China's day, so there maybe some real friction in the region.

Re:Same song, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was the cycle prior to GWB. Now the cycle is down to:

1. Make ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media. 2. Pull out of talks. 3. Demand concessions. (repeat)

Because they haven't, and won't, get concessins from us. Hence why their pleas are getting louder and more desperate as their food and fuel dwindle.

Ahhh, the Bush doctrine, love it.

Re:Same song, different day

[njfuzzy]

You got it wrong. It's:

6. ??? 7. Profit!

Re:Same song, different day

[Ironsides]

Not entirely, this admission raises the spectre of a Japan having to develope nukes to protect themselves from a nuclear N. Korea. The thought of a nuclear Japan really ruins China's day, so there maybe some real friction in the region.

Two things in respons to this. First, Japan can NOT develope weapons. Read the treaty they signed with the USA at the end of WWII. Weapons developement is pretty much forbiden. Second, they don't need to have nukes to protect themselves as long as the USA has a defence treaty with them. Japan gets atacked, the USA retaliates.

Re:Same song, different day

[WarpedMind]

Don't pay any attention to little Johnny playing with a gun over there in the corner. He's just doing that to get attention.

Re:Same song, different day

[k_187]

yes, but North Korea also signed a treaty saying they wouldn't develop weapons. I agree that the US has Japan's back so to speak. But in recent years, Japan has been moving toward being more independent than they have in the past. Its not unlikely that if Japan perceives North Korea as a large enough threat, they will take independent action from the US. Again, I don't think its likely, but given the way things have been going, I wouldn't count it out.

Re:Same song, different day

[pegasustonans]

Sure, nothing to see until they go nuke someone. Then there'll really be nothing to see, and no one to see it.

Re:Same song, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey as long as we are willing to fall for it, why not. They are just exploiting an ignorant administration, we would do the same. Oh and if by some chance they accidentally drop a nuke on California who cares its primarily a democratic state anyway right?

Re:Same song, different day

[johnjay]

Knowing that, don't you sometimes wish North Korea's sequence would go:
1. Makes ridiculous, aggressive statements in the media.
2. Pulls out of talks.
3. Demands concessions.
4. US takes North Korea at it's word--bombs every regime palace and military installation.
5. North Koreans stop eating pine needles and start a real life.

I know it's not going to happen. But what's the benefit of having an "irrational cowboy" in office if he doesn't throw down on the bad guys?

I know, I know, I'm being awfully glib with the "bomb back to the stone age" strategy. It's not a real answer.

Re:Same song, different day

[SnowZero]

They are just exploiting an ignorant administration

That they did. Guess which administration gave them the original toothless aid-for-no-nukes agreement in 1994? Guess which administration took it away when NK violated it. Okay, now we're on the same page.

Re:Same song, different day

[stienman]

nothing to see here.

" I called in sick so many times, next time I've going to have to call in dead."

Even though the pattern is similar, the actual message is exponentially increasing in hostility.

At what point do you start ignoring bomb threats for a school just because you receive them weekly?

If you learn over time to treat every threat as 'Just another empty threat' don't be surprised when someone actually follows through with the threat.

-Adam

Re:Same song, different day

[Coryoth]

Not entirely, this admission raises the spectre of a Japan having to develope nukes to protect themselves from a nuclear N. Korea.

Simply not going to happen. Japan is, I believe, constitutionally bound to not develop nuclear weapons, so it would require pretty fundamental change, for which there would be huge public opposition.

Japan is the only country in the world to have been attacked with nuclear weapons. Their aversion and hatred of such weapons is pretty much unparalleled. There is simply no way the Japanese public would consent to such a thing, and last time I checked Japan was still a Democracy.

Visit the peace museum in Hiroshima and then discuss the likelihood of Japan developing nuclear weapons.

Jedidiah.

Re:Same song, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as we found out when we invaded Iraq, the problem isn't overthrowing a corrupt dictatorship, but rather replacing it with something. Dictatorships, through propaganda and fear, can keep an oppressed and impoverished people in order. Removing the oppression, but keeping the poverty and hopelessness, seems to result in anarchy.

In the case of N. Korea, we'd also have to track and control the nuclear weapons program.

Re:Same song, different day

[morzel]

4. US takes North Korea at it's word--bombs every regime palace and military installation.
5. North Koreans stop eating pine needles and start a real life.

You forgot point 4A: Kim Jong Il pushes a button and turns Seoul and its 10 million inhabitants into a smoldering crater.

And North Korea doesn't need nukes for that...

Re:Same song, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan is the only country in the world to have been attacked with nuclear weapons. Their aversion and hatred of such weapons is pretty much unparalleled. There is simply no way the Japanese public would consent to such a thing, and last time I checked Japan was still a Democracy.

You haven't been keeping your eye on the ultra nationalists I see. Just let North Korea cut loose with an above ground test followed up by throwing ANOTHER missile over the top of Japan and see what happens.

Visit the peace museum in Hiroshima and then discuss the likelihood of Japan developing nuclear weapons.

Yeah, and after the above ground test along with a demo of delivery systems (which has actually already been accomplished) they'll realize the only way to avert a repeat performance of Hiroshima by an enemy who hates them is to have their own big stick.

Stick to math.. political speculation is not your forte.

Re:Same song, different day

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, having nuclear weapons isn't a protection against someone else who has nuclear weapons, except in the MAD sense.

Also, if you were another country, would YOU trust a treaty signed by the US several administrations ago? With you life?

The US has been quite undependable lately. I would think they were taking management lessons from Sun, if I hadn't seen it as a gradual development dating back to before Sun was having problems.

Re:Same song, different day

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think he forgot that. I think it was part of the "Not a real answer" thing.

Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?

then we can move on to sanctions and UN inspections

Re:Israel

[JeanBaptiste]

"Israel
perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?
then we can move on to sanctions and UN inspections"

No, it doesn't quite work like that. Whether you agree with it or not, we don't do that to our allies.... notice that france and england both have nuclear weapons also. (and i just found out today, belgium does too)

Re:Israel

[Mesaeus]

Um, no we don't. Belgium has a few nukes designed to be carried by planes, yes, but they and the missiles of a decade back (now gone) were placed by the US and are their sole property and responsability (through NATO). We don't have nukes of our own, nor do we have the capability to build them. Just a heads up before Bush decides to invade us too...

Re:Israel

[Mant]

Yeah, but France and UK got them way back, and before they were 'illegal', or at least before the anti-proliferation treaties.

Why do you think they are on the permanent security council? It used to be the countries with nukes club.

Re:Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?

Both North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran voluntary signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which is designed to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons, while supporting a state to develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

By signing the NPT, the state gets benefits (nuclear assistance) and has obligations (inspections, obligations to file declarations with IAEA, refusing to develop nuclear weapons, etc). No country is forced to sign the NPT.

North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran voluntarily signed the NPT, and they are both in violation, which can result in punishment (sanctions etc).

The state of Israel (and many other countries) has never signed the NPT, and therefore is not bound by it.

Get your facts straight, idiot.

Re:Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

You terror supporting piece of shit.

Either Israels terrorist regime must allow UN inspectors in the country or they should be taken out.

The terrorist state of Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than the rest of the world combined.

Fuck off and die you idiot. Little racists scumbags like you should be thankful this discussion is not in person...

Re:Israel

[Erwos]

AFAIK, the Israelis never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Neither did India or Pakistan. You can argue whether this was good or not, but at least those countries are being up front about their intentions.

-Erwos

Re:Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

You terror supporting piece of shit.

Wow, that was quite the undeserved opening. The post you were replying to was simply outlining the fact that it isn't illegal for Israel to have nukes, just like it isn't illegal for India or Pakistan.

He made no statements in support of Israel's policies, and in fact, he (and I) could easily be against their policies. That doesn't change the above facts.

Either Israels terrorist regime must allow UN inspectors in the country or they should be taken out.

They "MUST" allow UN inspectors to do what, exactly?

The terrorist state of Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than the rest of the world combined.

I know they are in violation of a number of resolutions, and may even have the corner on the market for most, but what does that have to do with having nukes?

Fuck off and die you idiot. Little racists scumbags like you should be thankful this discussion is not in person...

Your true biased self shows. Looked in the mirror lately?

Re:Israel

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're jews!
They can do whatever they like, like kill
palestinian children (3 and 4 years old) with
snipers, just because they like it. After all,
those kids were probably dangerous TERRORISTS!

AND WHAT ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST!!1?+

consequence of us foreign policy

[Robocrap]

i saw this post regarding iran's nuclear weapons program yesterday, that is relevant to korea as well: "Ending Iran's WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent. Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world." -James, Newcastle, UK

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

"might is right"

Not a US policy, its THE HUMAN policy since the beginning of time.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

"Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded. No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack. The USA's policy of 'Might is Right' is now to be cascaded throughout the world."

Ummm, except that they were in violation of UN sanctions, and had been in violation for over a decade. Even the UN does not dispute this. The only dispute was whether it was the right time to attack, or should further diplomacy be had.

If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[asoap]

You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.

The States has proven with their pre-emptive attack that if you don't have WMDs, you are a threat.

It's such messed up logic. I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.

In all of the world, there are really only a few countries that have WMD. How is it then that all of those other countries are able to prevent themselves from being attacked?

I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.

Oh, here you admit it. Certain countries "pose a threat" to the US. And just why do Iran and N. Korea pose a threat to the US? You state this as if they are just your normal countries, ho-hum, we just pose a natural threat to the US. Wrong. These two countries are run by BAD PEOPLE. They dictate their countries and oppress their citizens, especially in the case of N. Korea.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for of course Libya

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your support of taking out the terrorist state of Israel and their WMDs.

Gotta enforce those UN resolutions...

Fucking scumbag. Die.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[penguinoid]

Ending Iran's WMD programmes will not prevent invasion from a hostile foreign power. The only way to ensure their security is to have a suitable deterrent.

I think you are confused here. Researching WMD is a serious crime, and will likely result in powerful countries "asking" you to stop the research. Once you have your weapons, though, you have nothing to be ashamed of -- $powerful_country will no longer want to invade you since you can nuke them.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a US policy, its THE HUMAN policy since the beginning of time.

And by adopting the policy, the US has had no mental progress since the stone age. Getting rid of our destructive animal habits is called civilization.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[daem0n1x]

That "baddies" and "goodies" speech is a little braindead, don't you think? Real life is not like super-hero comics.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[JavaLord]

You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.

Not really, the only country that can assure the US of Mutually Assured Destruction is Russia. Yet their are plenty of other countries the US wouldn't attack for economic and political reasons.

If you are getting 5% -10% of your GDP in trade with a country, there is no way you will be hostile twards it. Which is why democracy and free markets will lead to a peaceful world.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A lot of those resolutions were, in the end, basically anti-semitic.

They had a resolution against Israel's oppression of women but Israel had a female prime minister before that resolution, but the neighboring countries never have. IIRC, there aren't any resolutions condemning any nation for not banning female genital mutulation. There is a program against FGM but it does nothing.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[daem0n1x]

And since when the US gov concerns about dictatorship and oppression? They didn't show any concern in the past, when they supported creeps like Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Mobutu, Batista, and many, many others. And in the present, they don't seem very concerned about oppression in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Remlik]

Wow, I guess Saddam went from an evil dictator killing hundreds of thousands in innocent people to just some poor schmuck the US and UN took down because they didn't like him.

Amazing how we forget the little things in our rush to vilify the US and President Bush.

Iraq was invaded for many reasons, possibibly building WMD's was one small reason. Violating 14 UN resolutions was another, scaming the Oil for Food program to build palaces and weapons factories was another, paying the families of suicide bombers was another...not to mention the genocide of the sunis.

I don't see any parrallel there to NK at all. Well except for all the evil dictator thing, and the killing of the people, and the production of WMDs, and the violation of UN and US treaties. Yea, we should just leave poor Kim alone, he's got soo much on his plate right now.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Since when has the U.S. had a problem running through fields of flowers with horrible dictators? Answer: never. We still do it today.

The fact is, Iraq was attacked because it was comparitively easy to push over, presented us with a strategic supply of oil, and allowed us to depart Saudi Arabia (thereby meeting a demand of bin Laden). If Iraq had WMD, you can bet we would not have just walked in through the front door.

Bad dictators are no problem for the U.S of A. Hell, we don't even mind the ones with nukes (ie, Pakistan). And arming up is a good trait in the evolution of nation states (apparently). Those guys with the nukes tend to survive. Look for it to keep happening.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

Thanks for your support of taking out the terrorist state of Israel and their WMDs.

Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

These two countries are run by BAD PEOPLE.

You shouldn't pull that black'n'white garbage here.

So GWB is a good person then? He started the war with false premises. Over 100K civilians are now dead because of the war. Why? Because Iraq has oil.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Maybe you shouldn't jump on people for having the nerve to state the truth, even if it may be politically incorrect to do so?

I don't like Bush's policies but Kim's policies are far worse, some estimates suggest that nearly two million of his own people died of famines at the end of the '90s.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[asoap]

Ok, maybe "pose a threat" is the wrong words to use, maybe the better words to use were "Countries that the United States thinks pose a threat". Maybe I should have spelt that out, but I wasn't arguing wether these countries were a threat to the United States or not.

The argument was that the United States will say that "They have weapons of Mass Destruction" when they don't, and then attack. But if they DO have weapons of mass destruction that argument won't be said simply because the United State wouldn't want to risk an attack with a country that has nukes.

Then again, I could be wrong. I wouldn't put it pass the U.S. to attack anyway.

But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative. You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.

It's that very thinking that causes terrorisim. "The United States is out to _get us_, so we have to go bomb them to stop them."

Also alot of this is a results of the United States protecting it's oil intrests in the middle east. Such as giving Iraq military intelligence in it's fight against Iran. So good guy Saddam Hussien could find out when those evil Iranians were going to attack and from where. You can see why Iran might have a grudge with the U.S. over stuff like that.

Now I don't want to say that I'm right and that they are wrong, I do want to say that there is a lot more to this then just your president pointing to a country on a map, and saying there evil, and everyone just believes it, and attacks. There is so much more, and that type of action and thinking just creates more problems, and continues to increase the risk of terrorisim in the U.S. instead of decreasing it.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

That "baddies" and "goodies" speech is a little braindead, don't you think? Real life is not like super-hero comics.

Are you saying in real life there are not bad people and good people?

Are you saying Kim Jong Il is not a bad person?

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[daem0n1x]

Genocide of who? Are you sure?
And do you remember who supported Saddam when he took power in Iraq? Yes, dude, it was YOUR government. Without US help he probably wouldn't be able to become the dictator in Iraq. And your government already knew he was a creep. Right after becoming president, he killed thousands of his opponents, with full support from the USA.
Go learn some History, dude.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[hey!]

Well, it's a complicated scenario, that you can pretty much find something that supports whatever point you want to make.

On one hand: they resisted weapons inspections.

On the other hand: it didn't really matter, because it turns out their WMD capability had been destroyed in Gulf I and they hadn't bothered to reconsistute it. Yet.

Personally, I never thought that failure to comply with inspections was prima facie evidence of their having WMD, and if I cared to I could dig up posts from back in the day to prove it. First of all, noncompliance was readily explained that this was a dictatorship that ruled by terror. Anything that smacks of weakness is fatal for these regimes. Secondly, there were all the boogey man scenarios the administration was pushing. They didn't strike me as having the demeanor of a group of people who had real evidence. Call it a hunch.

But of course, I couldn't be sure. Nobodoy could be sure. And that's the big point: the uncertainty itself was intolerable, and the agreements ending Gulf I gave us the right to eliminate that uncertainty, by force if necessary. The problem is that by overselling the case as one of certainty we're now in the position of the boy who cried wolf. Hopefully, the Europeans will have grown tired of being mad at us (as they always do eventually) before something needs to be done about North Korea and Iran.

In any cases it is true that decisiveness is a virtue, but so is patience. It's not impossible to have both. We're going to have to take a double dose of patience next time to make up for our lack the first time around.

If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.

Umm, I don't think I grasp your point here. If they had not been in violation of UN sactions, there would not have been a reason to mount the war, other than liberal interventionism for human rights ends.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[daem0n1x]

In my oppinion, he is really bad, and so is GWB and his whole staff. They are all increadibly evil.
But all is relative, this is just my oppinion.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[virg_mattes]

> I don't see any parrallel there to NK at all. Well except for all the evil dictator thing, and the killing of the people, and the production of WMDs, and the violation of UN and US treaties. Yea, we should just leave poor Kim alone, he's got soo much on his plate right now.

Not to put your back to the wall here, but substituting "China" for "NK" in the above does not make it false.

Carry on.

Virg

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Mr. Slippery]

except that they were in violation of UN sanctions, and had been in violation for over a decade.

Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions were fairly minor. (Certainly when compared with those of Israel.) In the months prior to the U.S. lead invasion they were cooperating with inspectors. The strongest case Bush could make was that Iraq didn't have the right paperwork detailing the destruction of weapons.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative.

Of course it is relative. Relative to most every other "leader" in the world, Kim Jong Il is a bad person. Glad to put it into context for you.

You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.

How many of these people think this because of the propaganda they here from the mullahs and islamic extremists that are rampant in their countries? Or by their dictators in whose best interest it is if the people hate America?

It's that very thinking that causes terrorisim. "The United States is out to _get us_, so we have to go bomb them to stop them."

According to most of the islamic extremists, the reason they attack us is because they hate freedom, hate democracy, and want to spread militant Islamic government across the world. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stated as much.

Now I don't want to say that I'm right and that they are wrong, I do want to say that there is a lot more to this then just your president pointing to a country on a map, and saying there evil, and everyone just believes it, and attacks.

Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.

Is N. Korea a free, democratic country? No.

Are they both run by people oppressing their citizens? Yes.

Are they both armed with nuclear weapons or working toward that goal? Yes.

If they were armed with nuclear weapons, would they pose a serious threat to their neighbors? Yes. Iran -- Israel. N. Korea -- S. Korea.

Would they both be interested in selling nuclear weapons to terrorist cells? Probably so.

Without intervention of some kind, will these countries become freer, safer, less of a threat to the free world as time goes on. Doubtful.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[That's Unpossible!]

But all is relative

This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative. No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side. Maybe they are really good, you just have to get a different relative position, right?

Even GWBs staunchest political opponents -- those that have met with him or know him -- believe that he is a "good person." I have heard many state as much when pressed on this point. They may not like his approach to things. They may disagree with him on most politics. But none of his political opponents have called him "evil," nor any of his staff.

Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil.

Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Mr. Slippery]

How is it then that all of those other countries are able to prevent themselves from being attacked?

They aren't. Any non-nuclear nation on the face of the earth is protected only by not being important to us, or by sympathy of nations we care about.

Since WWII the U.S. has engaged overt military interventions or in major covert operations in nations including Cuba, Guatemala, Panama, Iran, Grenada, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Libya, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and, oh yeah, we're still involved in the Korean war (there's been a long cease fire but the war is still in effect).

The historical lesson is clear: we want you, your ass is ours. Unless you've got nukes.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions were fairly minor. (Certainly when compared with those of Israel.)

Not true. Iraq was in violation of many Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolutions are the ones that can take real action - scantions and the use of force.

Israel is in violation of many General Assembly resolutions. General Assembly resolutions have the legal authority of parking bylaws - not much.

And if you say that Israel is in violation of Security Council resolution 242, go read 242 again. The Arab world is also in violation of 242.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. Yeah, because the US supported Saddam at one point means that we don't have any right to change our minds. I suppose we forgot to consult the crystal ball the day we supported him. Damn if he didn't become a murderous biggot.

Tell you what, since you are sooooo pissed off that you don't live in your little utopian world where no one is ever hurt I'll do this for you. After we are done cleaning up the horrible acts of Saddam, securing that region for future stability of the world, you can come lick the shit off my boots that Saddam left behind. Perhaps you'll like that better than the world you live in today.

YOU need to study some history yourself. The story concerning the province of Qin comes to mind, and how through war and death a lasting peace was created. This place is also known as China.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is why I'm not necessarily against the Iraq war. There are potentially good reasons to have gone to war in Iraq. It would take someone with a much more thorough knowledge of the Middle East than me to tell whether we can actually help, or just become another player in a long history of war.

However, I don't recall our president outlining a long list of reasons, and parading out the PhDs who had indicated that a Western invasion would be able to stabilize the area. I recall he said it was WMDs. Then the intelligence was shown to be faulty. He said it was terrorists, except that Al'Qaida doesn't have seem to have strong ties to Iraq (which the White House will still not admit). Eventually he came up with 'freeing the Iraqi people'.

I would have more respect for the president if I believed he went to war for the right reasons and with a thorough study of the military, social, and political implications, but I really don't believe that. Maybe he did, and just didn't talk about it much. He seems to think that we will blindly follow him like willing servants (like his Republican congress). I still can't believe we re-elected him.

In any case, North Korea is a whole different issue. I think it is very likely we are planning an invasion of Iran. NK is not a good target until we finish up our current operations, so they picked a good time to make a lot of noise. However, we plan our military around 3 significant conflicts simultaneously. We would also get support from SK and Japan. If China stayed out of it, we could beat North Korea in a war.

Nobody wants an actual nuclear war, though. Too messy.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Die you racist terror supporting scum.

There's a bus waiting for you in Tel Aviv...

Boom! Haha!

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT???

wrong, wrong, WRONG! WRONG!

Nobody even KNEW that SH was scamming oil-for-food until ~1.5 years after the invasion! and that only surfaced in the wake of the final ISG report and added to thinly veil over the fact that not a single WMD was actually found and that the bush administration's SOLE reasons for invading were total bunk, having been supplied by a mixture of Iraqi ex-pat dissident groups and Israeli intelligence (the latter throuh the office of special plans - goole for it), so.. ooooh no vested interests there eh?

The one and ONLY reason that the US invaded iraq was that it *HAD* WMD and *WAS* going to nuke america or give those WMD to "terrorists" to do the job for them.

Go find the quotes yourself and take your historical revisionism elsewhere 'cos it doesn't wash here.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Ensign Nemo]

"Iraq was invaded for many reasons, possibibly building WMD's was one small reason."

NO!!!!! THE reason for invading Iraq was because the USA had proof that Saddam had WMD. They even said he could launch them within 45 minutes. Did you forget the US ground troops wore chemical suits when they got near Bagdad? I specifically remember Rice and Rumsfeld and Bush all stating this.
In one of his speeches Bush even brought up how Nigeria had sold Yellow Cake to Saddam. Rumsfeld even said 'We know where they are.'

This is not 1984. you cannot rewrite history when you are wrong. Live with it.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Your softwood lumber tarrifs seem pretty hostile to me (and an obvious attempt to destroy our industries so you can take them over).

Seems pretty hostile to me.

-- A Canadian

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[asoap]

But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative.

Of course it is relative. Relative to most every other "leader" in the world, Kim Jong Il is a bad person. Glad to put it into context for you.

Thank you. I was having a hard time with that.

You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.

How many of these people think this because of the propaganda they here from the mullahs and islamic extremists that are rampant in their countries? Or by their dictators in whose best interest it is if the people hate America?

How many of these American think the same thing becuase of the propaganda they here from their extremists politicians and religious leaders, who it is in there best interest to attack the people in the islamic world?

While I don't believe what I just said to be true. Your argument can be used right back at the United States. Not all Americans hate muslims, but they are recieving proganda to tell them that they should.

Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.

Is N. Korea a free, democratic country? No.

Are they both run by people oppressing their citizens? Yes.

Are they both armed with nuclear weapons or working toward that goal? Yes.

If they were armed with nuclear weapons, would they pose a serious threat to their neighbors? Yes. Iran -- Israel. N. Korea -- S. Korea.

Would they both be interested in selling nuclear weapons to terrorist cells? Probably so.

Without intervention of some kind, will these countries become freer, safer, less of a threat to the free world as time goes on. Doubtful.

Is the United States a free, democratic country? Well, it's democratic, but free? With the way that people are giving away their rights, and the way that the US is not continuing to give people freedom, I would say NO. The U.S. is no longer a free country.

Is it run by people oppressing their citizens? Somewhat.

Is it armed with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction? Yes and Yes. And also the most advanced army in the world. The U.S. doesn't spend all that money on military just to defend themselves. The U.S. goes out and gets what it pays for.

Is the U.S. a serious threat to other countries? Yes. To who? Which ever country they want to attack.

Would they both be interested in selling weapons and military intelligence? Yes, and they have so, as in my previous post, where they GAVE military intelligence to Saddam Hussien.

Does the U.S. have a history of fucking around in the middle east where it has no real business in being except to protect their intrests in Fossil Fules? Yes. Ever since they gave Afghani Freedom fighters (read, Al Qaedia) weapons through Pakistan to fight the Russians.

If the U.S. hasn't been fucking around in the middle east for around 15 years, would they still be hated as much as they are? I don't know, that's a really big if. But I don't think that it's helping them.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[WhiplashII]

Sadly, the pure cold logical response is for the US to secretly ship small nukes in to North Korea, space evenly across the countryside - and simultaneously dentonate them. Kill 22 million people to defend North Korea's 10 million in Seoul, and the millions more in Tokyo.

If the US did this, they could disclaim any knowledge. There would be no one to retaliate against - and the world would beg the US to disarm all remaining countries, assuming that terrorist had done it.

This would be logical, would forward US interests, and would be a relatively easy operation. But even the staunchest US hater does not believe it would happen.

On the other hand, North Korea currently sells missiles to terrorist nations. They would definately sell nukes to terrorists. I don't think anyone disagrees with that statement... so that is why North Korea "poses a threat."

MAD doesn't work against terrorists.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Fjandr]

Is Iran a free, democratic country? No.

Maybe the US shouldn't have helped overthrow Mohammed Mussadegh, Iran's first (and at this point only) democratically elected leader.

Also, N. Korea would be unlikely to use nuclear weapons on S. Korea. They see it as their rightful territory. What's the point of invading if you make the land unusable?

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[asoap]

MAD doesn't work against terrorists.

Yes, because they are convinced that there destruction is already assured.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[internic]

Bush submitted to congress exactly 3 reasons for going to war with Iraq:

1. Iraq posed a military threat to the US
2. War was necessary to enforce UN regulations
3. Iraq's support of terrorists

See his statement here.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[internic]

We were still his ally during the time that he was using chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. Note the photo there of Rumsfeld (Reagon special envoy) shaking hands with Saddam occured after those incidents. We probably would have preferred if he stopped, but we weren't about to do anything to stop it, because it was politically inconvenient. Now, whether or not you think that was the right action, let's not pretend that the US only supported him before he was a mass murdering war criminal, because that's simply not true.

Incidentally, I'm an American, and no I don't hate the US; I only recognize that we are not perfect, and I don't wish to view history through rose colored glasses.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[MightyYar]

Their neighbours Iraq scrapped their WMD programmes and soon as they were suitably defenceless they were invaded.

Actually, Israeli airstrikes took care of their nuke program, and coalition invasion during the 1991 Gulf War made it possible to mothball their WMD programs. So they were not invaded because they had no WMDs... they were invaded several times in spite of having WMDs.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Jagasian]

But it is true that they are stockpiling WMDs and occupying Palestinian land. What about the UN resolutions on those topics? It is far too easy to claim anti-semitism and basically give Israel immunity from all UN resolutions.

I agree that FGM needs to be condemned, but then there should also be UN resolutions against male circumcision of babies that involves sucking the blood from a freshly circumcised baby's penis. Here is a picture on a not so good site (notice the domain name). I too thought that claims of this practice were anti-semitic bullshit... until I read all of the reputable news reports, CNN. Hell circumcising males using a medical instrament as opposed to a rabbi's mouth should also be prohibited, unless there is an urgent medical reason for doing so (none of that "it helps keep it clean crap", we don't cut our ears off do we) or the person is an adult and consents.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[KingSchlong]

Uh huh... were these the resolutions passed by all the anti-semites in the Arab countries? Just wondering. And what countries supported those resolutions?

Often the resolutions are supported by everyone except the US. Here's a list of UN resolutions regarding Israel which have been vetoed by the US. Note that most of the time the votes in the security council are 14-1, the 1 being the US of course.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Jagasian]

An Arab once told me that 1+1=2. Therefore arithmetic is false.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[LtOcelot]

This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative.

Defensible so far.

No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side.

Now you've fallen into a straw-man understanding. Moral relativism does not deny the existence of evil, it simply defines evil in relative terms rather than absolute.

Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil. Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?

Given that it's a political faux pas to call your rivals "evil", listening to Bush's "staunchest political opponents" call him a "good person" is meaningless, just par for the course. Politicans abandon such pretenses only when talking about people outside their system. If you want an assessment that isn't tainted by politics, ask someone who's neither a politician nor otherwise involved in the political game.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[gbdc]

I cannot agree more. For all the Americans here, I suggest you read papers from non-American points of view to realize how abusive your country has become 'for the sake of making it RIGHT'

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[elemental23]

Nice, but I think it was a little too subtle for most Slashdot readers.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[incabulos]

There are other terms for this 'human' policy - tyranny, despotism, law of the jungle.

One would hope that after thousands of years of civilisation that the US ( founded on the principles of freedom, tolerance, and so on ) of all nations would not be so quick to abandon civility and assume the role of the dictator, schoolyard bully or mafia thug.

You ever notice how rabid dogs and rampaging barbarian hordes alike are eventually hunted down and destroyed? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and it is even possible (thought unlikely) that it could trigger a trade war.

But what're the chances of Canada and the US nuking each other?

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

shit.

eksplosion

[tomjen]

so the huge explosion in NK (previously on slashdot somewhere)was a neuclear test or what?

Re:eksplosion

[jolyonr]

Yes, and apparently the radioactive cloud released has been leaving a trail of death and dyslexia as it travels around the world.

J

Re:eksplosion

[Anonymous Coward]

Try if you can write better danish than i write english.

Until you can do that shut the fuck up.

Re:eksplosion

[jolyonr]

Sorry for picking on your spelling. Anyway, the answer to your original point is no, the explosion in North Korea recently wasn't a nuclear test. THey can tell pretty damn accurately nowdays from the seismic recording done by earthquake monitors the difference between the pulse of a nuclear weapon test, conventional explosives and natural explosions & earthquakes. And all of the evidence (including lack of radioactivity) points to a non-nuclear cause of that big bang.

J

At Least Two Options

[fmckee]

1) Withdraw our troops from SK and clear the area for what comes next. 2) Let China deal with it.

Re:At Least Two Options

[generalpf]

You have troops in Saskatchewan? No way, eh?!?

team america

[ack154]

"It was inevitibible..."
"I'm sorry, what?"
"Inevataball..."
"One more time?"
"INEVITABLE! Jesus christ! Why are people so fucking stupid?!"

Re:team america

[Chicane-UK]

Its just because Kim Jong-Il is 'ronery' :)

Re:team america

[at_slashdot]

Because some people don't speak English since they are born as you probably do. I speak 3 other languages for example and I make mistakes in English, I only hope you know 2 other languages as well as I do -- just to be on par with me. Stop correcting people, did you understand what they wanted to communicate? yes? shut the fuck up, no? ask politely what did they want to say.

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you.

Re:team america

[Larmal]

I'm guessing you haven't seen Team America: World Police?

Re:team america

[ack154]

Like the other guy said... You have to see Team America to get the joke (hence the title)... if you haven't, then STFU.

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

stfu

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, got some angry geeks in here today.

Re:team america

[at_slashdot]

Oh. I'm so ashamed that I didn't get the joke 'cause I din't see Team America... I knew that missing that movie will haunt me. Damn! What I missed.... what I missed....

Re:team america

[WWE-TicK]

You missed not looking like a friggin' idiot. You should have at least posted anonymously.

Re:team america

[at_slashdot]

And you just missed looking like an asshole. Yours trully. Anonymous

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah! Well I know for defferent langages and besids myah daddy can beat up yer daddy so thar! Are you raggin' today or just drinking too much caffiene? Seriously, lighten up Francis!

Re:team america

[WWE-TicK]

I'm the asshole? First you brag about being able to speak 3 languages. Then you insult the guy you're responding to by saying he'd be lucky to even be able to understand 2 of the languages you supposedly know just to be able to hold your jock, all the while not realizing that he was in fact quoting a movie. So I may be an asshole, but you're a pretentious, idiotic, asshole.

Again .. learn to post anonymously. Hint: ending your post with "Anonymous" doesn't make your post anonymous.

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

lover's tiff, eh? valentine's day got you all in a tizzy? it'll all seem better in the morning.

Re:team america

[smallguy78]

Hopefully the UN won't send 'hans brix' to sort it out

Re:team america

[at_slashdot]

First of all I don't have any problem signing my posts, I'm not ashamed of anything.

Please stop giving commands/sarcastic suggestion to other people -- that makes you look like an asshole.

1. I don't brag, it's not big deal, any idiot can learn (Bush knows at least 2 languages AFAIK). But I also know that many times the people who make mistakes speak their first language better than grammar Nazi you'll find here on slashdot. Not only this, but even people who know only one language and make mistakes should not be judged by that but by the content of what they say.

2. that "if you understand, shut the !#@$ up, if you don't: ask" was written as a general note. I stand by that statement. It's not intended to insult anybody in particular -- only those who feel target by it, and I won't feel bad about it.

3. And yes I realized that's from the movie (hint: it's stated in the title) I addressed the issue that him/movie raised what's that difficult to understand?

4. You started name calling and to give unrequested suggestions. Thank you, believe me, I take full accountability for my actions now and in general, I don't need a jerk to advise me when to sign my posts.

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he had the humility to admit that he made a mistake. Want to do the same? Didn't think so......

Re:team america

[Kafka_Canada]

ror

Re:team america

[Anonymous Coward]

Because some people don't speak English since they are born as you probably do. I speak 3 other languages for example and I make mistakes in English

The irony is that the correction was, actually, about a French word

It's all jokes but....

[teiresias]

I'm sure there will be a lot of jokes about WMDs etc but this is a clear and present danger. North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable. While many will say it's common knowledge that North Korea had nuclear weapons, this is a big deal in that they admitted it.

What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it. The 6 party talks only resumed a few weeks ago I believe. This can't be a good thing that they've stop talks.

My nervous level has moved up to Red (sorry had to end with a joke).

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Black Parrot]

> What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it.

What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[jxyama]

thanks for your sentiment... as a japanese, my nervous level is also quite higher. (though i don't live in japan right now.) north korea once fired a missile over japan into the pacific... scary stuff...

on a lighter note, does this have anything to do with japan bearing north korea yesterday in the 2006 world cup qualifier with a tie-breaking goal 2 min. before the end of the game, winning 2-1? (just joking... i hope it stays a joke, though.)

Re:It's all jokes but....

[RicardoStaudt]

[quote] North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable. [/quote] The United States, on the other side, are sooo predictable...

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Enoch Root]

What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the boast that Irak's invasion was supposed to make the world safer. One year later, and there's now two hostile countries who armed themselves with nuclear power in DIRECT RELATION to a perceived threat to their sovereignty coming from the US.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[DarKry]

Scary? nah just one more reason not to move back to the US. I think the US is probably going to destroy itself (if in a less violent way) before NK gets a chance to launch nukes though.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

If you really think Iraq was invaded for "weapons of mass destruction" or "oil" you are brain dead.

Iraq was simply a front in 'war on terror' or the christian/secularist vs radical islamic war. The war was brought to Bagdad so it wouldn't be fought in Boise.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[russint]

What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

Wrong, whats really frightening is that a religous extremist nutjob is in control over an agressive country which owns tons of nuclear weapons (the only country who ever used a nuclear bomb against another country).

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really frightening is that the US don't want to talk about it.

NK and the other members of the 6 nations talks have demanded bilateral talks between the US and NK for years now, yet for years the current administration refuses to talk.

And look where this sorry excuse of a diplomatic tactic has brought us.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Black Parrot]

> Wrong, whats really frightening is that a religous extremist nutjob is in control over an agressive country which owns tons of nuclear weapons

What?!?!?!?

> (the only country who ever used a nuclear bomb against another country).

Oh... I thought you were talking about Iran.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[lurwas]

"What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough."

All North Korea has to do is find oil and they will no longer be ignored...

Re: It's all jokes but....

[John Jorsett]

whats really frightening is that a religous extremist nutjob is in control over an agressive country which owns tons of nuclear weapons (the only country who ever used a nuclear bomb against another country).

Yeah, everyone knows the USA will nuke anyone at the drop of a hat. After 60 years of us having such weapons, WE'RE ON THE EDGE, MAN! Don't piss us off!

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Kokuyo]

Well America is by far more predictable.... It's just that it's exactely that that makes me fear it at least as much as North Korea or China. Or did you think I'd prefeer an American Dictator to an asian one? Think again.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Black Parrot]

> If you really think Iraq was invaded for "weapons of mass destruction" or "oil" you are brain dead.

Well, I don't think it was for WMD; I think that was just a deceptive excuse that the Warcriminal in Chief thought he could get away with.

As for oil... yes, that was a major reason. The '91 war left Iraq isolated and restricted on selling its oil output, with no resolution in sight. The Bush Administration found that situation unsatisfactory, and used the first possible excuse to do something about it.

> Iraq was simply a front in 'war on terror' or the christian/secularist vs radical islamic war.

Yeah, right. The only Islamicist terrorist organization in Iraq was thriving under our protection in the northern no-fly zone.

> The war was brought to Bagdad so it wouldn't be fought in Boise.

Funny, people used to justify fighting in Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight commies in California.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

Actually, it will. The North Koreans should be left to sit and spin. Like the Chinese would tolerate a North Korean attack on their largest trading partner (the United States)? If those loons even reach for the button, about 1/3 of the PLA will come knocking and "no" will not be an acceptable answer.

This is a ploy (plea?) to get help. Screw 'em. Let them starve. If they are unwilling to accept a better form of government (be it Chinese, Indian, South Korean or US -style) they have it coming.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[HangingChad]

Funny, people used to justify fighting in Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight commies in California.

I remember thinking that myself. Funny no one ever stood up and said we screwed up in Viet Nam. Just like no one can just come out and say we screwed up in Iraq. For some reason we have to collectively go on kidding ourselves that there was some grand purpose, some lofty goal. It was a screw up, plain and simple, and everyone knows it except for 52% of the population. You can't ever make progress denying reality (but apparently you can get re-elected). The truth really will set you free but continuing to live a lie costs 4 billion a month.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't think it was for WMD; I think that was just a deceptive excuse that the Warcriminal in Chief thought he could get away with.

That is cute, but saying things like 'warcriminal in chief' just invalidates you in any serious discussion.

As for oil... yes, that was a major reason. The '91 war left Iraq isolated and restricted on selling its oil output, with no resolution in sight. The Bush Administration found that situation unsatisfactory, and used the first possible excuse to do something about it.

Iraq was selling enough oil for itself, and the US had no oil supply problems because it wasn't buying a lot of Iraq's oil. Iraq's oil accounted for about 1% of the oil that was imported in to the US. Will there be oil problems in the future due to US and Chinese consumption? Yes. Was this war over oil? I'd say no. Maybe it's about influencing a region where oil in plentiful, but I'd say it has more to do with 9/11 than anything else.

Yeah, right. The only Islamicist terrorist organization in Iraq was thriving under our protection in the northern no-fly zone.

Uhh, Al Quada had a cell in the country before the US was in Iraq, and they trained in Iraq. Moreover, with the US forces in Iraq, terrorists were motivated to go into Iraq and attack the US army.

Funny, people used to justify fighting in Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight commies in California.

Well, we still have to fight the commies in California sometimes like Barbra Boxer (kidding) :). In all seriousness, you can't compare the two. Communists for the most part didn't/don't believe in their ideology to the point where they would die to kill innocent people on the other side. Communists don't fly planes into buildings, kidnap innocent children, behead random innocent people, etc.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Black Parrot]

> Funny no one ever stood up and said we screwed up in Viet Nam.

Oddly enough, when the Iraq/Vietnam comparison comes up on Usenet you get people who argue that we "really" won in Vietnam.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[J. T. MacLeod]

What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.

Hardly.

The US had an opportunity to remove the murderous dictator from Iraq with minimal risk. (It was only right, the US government put him there, it was their responsibility to remove him.)

The US does NOT presently have that opportunity in North Korea. See, there's this little neighboring country called China. Perhaps you've heard of it? If China responds militarily, as they've warned they would, the risk will be enormous. If it weren't for China, North Korea would not presently be a threat.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[beanlover]

No...what's really hard to believe is tripe like this gets modded insightful simply because there is a line in it bashing Bush and the Libs-with-mod-points on this board still can't get over the fact they are in the minority and lost the last two elections.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the last time I was in Vietnam I stayed at a Radisson hotel and ate at KFC.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Minority? Um, dude, Bush won 51%. It was almost an even fucking split. The country is divided by redneck inbred fucktards that do our manual labor, and intellectual blowhards who bullshit constantly. But neither group is small enough to qualify for "minority". Half the country is one, half is the other.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

While many will say it's common knowledge that North Korea had nuclear weapons, this is a big deal in that they admitted it.

Heh, you mean they admitted it, again. This is old news. N. Korea is basically strong arming the U.S. for more aid. The question is do we believe they are desperate enough to do something crazy. They are in rough shape and starvation is a real problem. They currently spend their money on weapons programs rather than food, since weapons programs get them money from the U.S. and China. The U.S. can't invade or nuke them without provoking a war with China. China can't invade without a nuke going off either. Strategically, the best bet is probably for the U.S. to detonate a big nuke there and try to make it look like it was one of N. Koreas. It would kill a lot of our allies as well, but I'm not sure that is problem for the current administration.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

And what's really really frightening, is that the American public is dumb/ignorant enough to keep voting that administration into power.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Experiment 626]

What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.

Not only does this thread have the obligatory hundred posts criticizing Bush for going into Iraq without enough international consensus, but you get +5 criticizing his insistence that other nations be part of the negotiations with Korea. So what's the official Bush-basher position, is his foreign policy too unilateral or too multilateral?

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Dan East]

in DIRECT RELATION to a perceived threat to their sovereignty coming from the US

So you actually think that they only began developing these weapons after the US invaded Iraq?

That type of naiveté is highly desirable trait for citizens of communist governments like N Korea's.

Dan East

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there will be a lot of jokes about WMDs etc but this is a clear and present danger. North Korea, as displayed by their current actions, is unpredictable.

Exactly. The U.S. is much less dangerous, since they predictably abuse their power and use radioactive weapons freely.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Ogive17]

You should read more world news other than what is posted on /.

The current US Administration has not "ignored" N. Korea. In fact, they have been saying for the past four years that the US will not negotiate 1 on 1, they will only participate if China, S. Korea, Russia and Japan (maybe) are involved as well. The reason the Administration has done this is to cut through Kim Jong Il's rheteric.

But the US is damned if they do, damned if they don't. People whine when the US goes solo, and people whine when the US doesn't take immediate action.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[beanlover]

Thanks for proving my point while refuting your own.

51% is a MAJORITY last I checked.

Granted this is the majority of voters which, although it may not, represent the country as a whole (discounting fraud).

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

It is strange that somebody is saying that North Korea is unpredictable. In fact the are very much predictable. No matter how many nukes they have they are not going to attack anyone. If they will they are finished and they know it. About the only threat that comes from them is that when they have too many nukes they might consider selling them to the highest bidder. It is also very easy to guess who that might be. On the other hand when everyone knows the origin of the nuke, the North Korea will have to take responsibility for the use of it. So they not going to sell nukes either.
What they could do is to sell nuclear technologies to other countries. But it is a much lower threat.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Black Parrot]

> The country is divided by redneck inbred fucktards that do our manual labor, and intellectual blowhards who bullshit constantly.

I don't know whether to be offended by that remark, or offended by that remark. I guess it depends on which group I belong in...

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Jason Hood]

One of the reasons Iraq was invaded was its moral and military climates. Both were very low, making it an easy win.

I am not sure what you mean by us not invading fast enough, Nearly every country in the world (including Iran) was speechless. We minimized casualties on both sides and made sure we had the weapons and manpower to stay in control. (Go ahead make the typical bogus counter argument). Sounds like you dont have a military background...

Its obvious you are a flaming liberal but at least let facts help you form your opinions and not let opinions form your facts. We wont attack North Korea because they have a significantly larger army, better weapons (courtesy of China and USSR) and a brainwashed public. 2/3 of Iraq hated Saddam. This was common knowledge. NKorea is another case.

War is ugly brutal and ends up hurting people on both sides, innocent or evil. If you don't believe in war, thats great. There is nothing wrong with that. I dont either unless its a last resort. What is your alternative that has been proven to work? Economic sanctions and threats historically dont work. In fact they can have the opposite effect, ask NKorea. That bastard (or one of his minions) will remain in power until someone removes them. His people simply dont know any better. Look how far South Korea has come...

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Jason Hood]

What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.

BS, negotiations were ignored because they werent negotiations, they were blackmail and scams. NKorea want financial or economic benefits in return for not building a nuclear stockpile. It was a joke. They actually wanted cash to stop!

In case you dont know, building nuclear weapons can take decades or research and testing. These are not new revelations in the last 3 years. The very fact that these totalitarian countries desire weapons to protect them from free countries should be enough to classify them as a threat to humanity.

Not sure where you get your news from, try cross checking with multiple sources before you accept "news" as fact.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Dread_ed]

You know what I have noticed....

Everyone saying that North Korea is the new threat sounds just like Clinton, Bush, Powell, and all the other leaders that said that Iraq had WMD's.

I bet if we invaded North Korea today we wouldn't find any nukes and all of you would turncoat and say that the government lied to us all to get us to invade them for their "insert consumer good here."

Someone better call Hans Blix and get him in there right away so we can know the truth.

I don't buy it, and I'm not worried at all. If they get out of hand all China has to do is militarily fart in their general direction and they will be wiped off the map.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that there is no opportunity but I fail to understand why most people can't see that.

We lost thousands of lives in the war with NK the first time around in the 1950's and we did not win. Sure the NK was using Soviet provided equipment but we weren't able to beat them back then so what makes anyone think that dealing with NK now is simply a matter of miliary action? Especially with Chinese support.

NK could easily be another Vietnam if we attacked it, but I'd doubt that would be the case. In all likelihood, we'd loose our 36,000 troops in Seoul as well as loose the million or so South Koreans living in Seoul. During the first go around there weren't hundreds of missiles sitting on the DMZ line ready for launch at Seoul. Who knows what chemicals or biological agents are in those warheads?

I seriously doubt that we will ever attack NK first. It's just not feasible to us or the South Koreans because of the initial loss of life.

On the other hand, I could see NK attacking us first if we interfere with their missile dealing revenue stream and major source of income and that scares me.

Either we don't stop missile proliferation and possibly nuclear missile proliferation and risk getting attacked by a different nutjob dictator or we stop proliferation and risk getting nuked by NK.

Someday some nut is going to attack the US with a nuke. Whether it be NK, Pakistan (islamic revolution maybe?), or a middle-eastern country, it's hard to tell. The cats out of the bag. Eventually some fool is actually going to try to use it.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Lord_Dweomer]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what sort of military defenses Japan has for something like this?

Aside from giant robots...

Re:It's all jokes but....

[Darby]

So what's the official Bush-basher position, is his foreign policy too unilateral or too multilateral?

For me, it is the total lack of integrity evidenced by him and his administration.

Re: It's all jokes but....

[FleaPlus]

Not only that, but I recall reports that support for the Democrats has fallen around 10-15% since the election.

Re:It's all jokes but....

[jxyama]

to be honest, i don't really know. japan has some military capabilities, under self-defense units, but it's nowhere near, say, israel. (well, not many countries are, for that matter.)

if north korea got serious, not much can be done against it. japan's best bet is to threaten economic sanctions. right now, the sentiment from the politicians is that 'let's calm down, wait and see. we can't respond to every childish negotiation leveraging tactics of that country.' japan is asking the return of all the kidnapped nationals from north korea. it's a delicate situation...

completely off topic, but japan's world cup team is doing a bit of a "nuclear" tour. played north korean two days ago... next game is in tehran against iran. the coincidence... (the last team in the group is bahrain - probably no nuclear threat there..?)

They admit to have WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then now we can be absolutely sure that the USA will NOT "liberate" them. Bush may be evil but he is not stupid.

Sorry Korea...

[detour207]

Sorry North Korea but you don't seem to be in the Middle East.. NO WAR FOR YOU! Iran however....

Re:Sorry Korea...

[static0verdrive]

Pretty much. If Iraq did have WMDs the US never would have put their public in jepardy by going over there - North Korea, on the other hand, presents a real threat, plus there isn't much to be gained by making them submit anyway, so we won't see the US of A showing up there any time soon...

Re:Sorry Korea...

[kjamez]

i've read some stuff talking about what would happen if we tried to invade n korea, and it mostly went down like: no matter what action is taken against N. Korea, Souel, S Korea will be destroyed. (be it nuclear or just a barrage of short-range missles) ... there is allegedy no way to take out n korea's artillary quickly enough to prevent some attack on S. Korea.

Re:Sorry Korea...

[Eminence]

there is allegedy no way to take out n korea's artillary quickly enough to prevent some attack on S. Korea.

How about a bunch of precisely targeted thermonuclear warheads?

Re:Sorry Korea...

[Eminence]

Yeah, that's something I don't get about current administration. They are so angry about Iran now, or they appear to be, but compared to North Korea Iran is a peaceful, free country. They even have real elections out there, they are not a total democracy but surely not a kind of absolute pharaoh-type dictatorship NK is. People more or less lead normal lives in Iran, they just can't wear swimsuits. I know decency police is no joke for Iranians, but at least they don't kill for not putting on your scarf. And people are even allowed to more or less travel around the country at will, run business etc. A completely different world than the hell NK is.

And their leadership is surely much more predictable than NK's and much, much less cruel than Iraq's was. I never heard of ayatollahs having their own private torture rooms or ordering mass murders like Saddam did. And I don't remember Iran playing blackmail on the international scale like NK - constantly rattling its little saber to get concessions from the civilized world.

Re:Sorry Korea...

[Detritus]

Look at a map. Look at the location of the DMZ. Look at the location of Seoul. North Korea has a massive military presence just north of the DMZ. Whatever happens, Seoul is in deep shit. Just the fallout from your theoretical preemptive nuclear attack would cause mass casualties in South Korea.

Re:Sorry Korea...

[Eminence]

OK, you are right, that was a joke. And a tasteless one too.

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure there must be a way to do something about it. And frankly I think that China's position and role is crucial here. In fact Kim can persist as long as Chinese tolerate him, but when they would judge that it no longer suits their interests NK regime is doomed. Just an unofficial assurance of sympathetic neutrality from China would change strategic situation greatly in favor of US and SK forces.

Putting nuclear weapons aside Korea is of course a much harder territory to operate in than deserts - plenty of places to hide from air attack and even if their air defense is probably no match for a modern war machine the USAF is air strikes wouldn't be as damaging as it were in Iraq. Also, NK has developed plenty of special forces whose operatives infiltrate the South regularly. They are also known for building tunnels deep into SK territory - one was discovered in the end of nineties who was around 100 miles long and big enough for trucks to drive through it. So, you are right... Militarily NK appears to be a tough one.

However, there are no impenetrable fortresses and such regimes usually appear much stronger on the outside than they really are. The problem here is, I think, more of psychological nature. Rather than seeking complete destruction of their army military planers should probably concentrate on eliminating Kim himself and paralyzing chains of command so that possible internal power struggles could ripe. Best solution would be a carefully staged mounting threat of imminent invasion coupled with a promise of criminal prosecution for any caught leaders. In other words plying their own game of chicken on them. I think they would be the ones to chicken out first.

Re:Sorry Korea...

[kjamez]

they still have to fly thousands upon thousands of miles, which takes time. S. Korea is a 'stones throw' away from N. Korea (might be why they are named N and S ... ) and kimbo could launch every last one of his nukes by the time ours got to him ...

now if we could borrow bill's laser-satelite, mass produce them, geosyncronize them over N. Korea, took out all their nuclear silos (assuming we knew where they ALL were, and big ups to the USA intel. community, they are always on point) then maybe we'd found a reasonable out.

The only thing we had going for us in Iraq was they didn't actually have WMDs. Made it easy not to fear retaliation. oh, wait.

Re:Sorry Korea...

[MightyYar]

I think that Iran is feared because as it stands, they fund a lot of terrorism. If they had Nukes, they could afford to be even more blatant. Plus, who has access to the button? Is there the possibility that Israel could be destroyed because of one fanatic?

N Korea's nuclear weapons and our online rights?

[haluness]

I'm not sure I see the connection between N Korea's stance and our online rights (or even our rights in general). Of course its an interesting peice of news.

Just wondering

Whoops!

[Squeezer]

I guess Bill Clinton shouldn't of trusted Kim Jong II when he said "Give me nuclear material and I promise not ot make nukes". See how well that turned out? Sending Carter over there didn't help things either, not that it would, Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't love.

Re:Whoops!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to take a remedial literacy class and bone up on your facts, kiddo.

Re:Whoops!

[Beebos]

>>Carter hasn't met a dictator he didn't love.

Carter started a proxy war against the Soviet Union fool!!!!

Oops...

[Black Parrot]

I guess we invaded the wrong country... maybe we should elect presidents with a better grasp of geography. Or reality.

Re:Oops...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying we should invade N. Korea?

Re:Oops...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is to invade BEFORE they get the weapons. You want to invade once they have weapons? What reality do you live in? (NK has probably had them for years...)

Re:Oops...

[meatspray]

"maybe we should elect presidents with a better grasp of geography. Or reality"

I fear they're mutually exclusive.

What a surprise

[Timesprout]

If I was budding tyrant bossing a country, developing or getting nukes would not just have gone top of my agenda, it would have become my sole agenda after the US showed they would ignore international opinion and act unilaterally based either or real or trumped up allegations.

Re:What a surprise

[Chibi Merrow]

Pyonyang's nuclear program started under the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. Madeline Albright gave N. Korea nuclear material for "electricity generation".

Re:What a surprise

[Xoro]

Pyonyang's nuclear program started well before the Clinton administration, which is why the Clinton administration had to deal with North Korea's nuclear program. Did you think they offered LWRs just for the hell of it?

So it didn't work. Neither did anything else.

Obvious

[boohiss]

We pretty much already assumed they had em.

Condoleeza Rice

[digidave]

Rice says: "The North Koreans have no reason to believe that anyone wants to attack them. They have been told they can have multilateral security assurances if they will make the important decision to give up their nuclear weapons program. So there is really no reason for this, but we will examine where we go next."

Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says? Maybe if Bush builds up some goodwill and trust then the North would be willing to resume negotiations. You don't negotiate with someone you think is lying to you.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[Anonymous Coward]

You're serious? The US negotiated in good faith in '94, way before evil old Bush and Rice. And what happened? The onus is on NK in this case. Chack your hate for Bush and the US at the door for this one...

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[magarity]

Maybe if Bush builds up some goodwill and trust then the North would be willing to resume negotiations. You don't negotiate with someone you think is lying to you.

This seems staggerly out of touch; are you aware that the nuclear weapons in question were built from technology the Clinton administration donated in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons? You really think the North Korean government is a paragon of trustworthiness and the USA with its donations of foodstuffs to the starving NK population is at fault?

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[Anonymous Coward]

The US won't invade North Korea. The management probably remember what happened last time. Everything was going well until the Chinese joined in.

A few carriers and ships within striking distance of the worlds largest air force with only South Korea (who will sure as hell NOT want to get involved)as a possible land base. No chance

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[fnj]

Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says?

I don't agree with all the Bush policies either, and CERTAINLY not all the tactics and strategies, but what is the basis for this? The rap is just the opposite - that Bush says what he is going to do and then does it, even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[alman]

IIRC North Korea was one of the countries on the Axis of Evil, so was Iraq (invaded) so was Iran (taking steps towards) and North Korea is going to think it's safe?!?!?

What do I know I'm a canuck who doesn't follow US politics that much.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it'll take at least 40 years for middle east countries to start trusting the USA again, even if the USA starts today with actually considering the consequences of what they do. But if the USA invades North Korea, that will be done with the knowledge that some major ally of the USA could end up with a smoking radioactive city (or countryside, I dunno how good the aiming is on their missiles).

I, for one, hope that they'd nuke the alaskan oil fields, just to piss Bush off.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[808140]

This seems staggerly out of touch; are you aware that the nuclear weapons in question were built from technology the Clinton administration donated in exchange for not developing nuclear weapons?

With all due respect, you don't know this. The DPRK has simply said they possess nuclear weapons; they have further stated that they've had them for a long time. There was a scare about them having nukes in 1993; that was only a year into Clinton's first term. Who knows when or how they got them; let's not forget that they are (at least on the surface of it) on peaceable terms with China, another major nuclear power. They were previously on good terms with the Soviets. There are lots of places they could have gotten the tech from.

Clinton may have been responsible, but he just as easily could have had nothing to do with it. Your statement makes it sound as though there is authoritative evidence damning him, when in fact there is none.

Try not to spread mindless bullshit just because it seems likely to you and fits in with your politics. It advances no one's knowledge.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[halber_mensch]

If you really think about it....

Just how much trust can a lifetime dictator have for a political power so unstable that it shifts from one political idiom to another every four or eight years as presidents, senators, congressmen, and cabinets appear, shuffle around, and disappear? Almost every election year the climate in washington is put on a totally new spin, and the rest of the world has to re-learn how to figure the new administration out. If you put things in that context, the US can certainly seem a bit volatile and unpredictable. Certainly the fact that we are the only nation in the history of the world to have used nuclear weapons in anger - twice, and on civilians - does not help our appeal to others to disarm either.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[aelbric]

"Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe North Korea has no reason to believe anything the Bush administration says? Maybe if Bush builds up some goodwill and trust then the North would be willing to resume negotiations. You don't negotiate with someone you think is lying to you."

Strange. Replace words to read the following:

Assurances, huh? Ever think for a minute that maybe the United States has no reason to believe anything Saddam Hussein says? Maybe if Iraq builds up some goodwill and trust then the USA would be willing to resume negotiations. You don't negotiate with someone you think is lying to you.

Just an observation.

Re:Condoleeza Rice

[Dread_ed]

even if preponderant thinking regards it as insane.

They said the same things about Reagan when he tried to tear "down that wall," among other things.

It makes you wonder was he right all along and all the naysayers were full of krap. Or, does someone who follows through on what they say they are going to do, and who happens to carry around a HUMONGOUS STICK, get what they want more often than not.

Or Not :(

[Kid_Korrupt]

Damn you shreevatsa, katsiris, Adrilla, bigtallmofo, Ligur, lucabrasi999, dsginter, and darkmeridian!

Your computers are faster than mine! I'm coming to steal them!

Re:Or Not :(

[lucabrasi999]

Your computers are faster than mine! I'm coming to steal them!

Please do. I need a new corporate laptop.

politics section

[jdowland]

I thought 'why on earth is this article themed with the US flag - are north korean WMD only of interest to usa citizens?' then I realised that was the theme for politics.slashdot.org.

Then I thought 'why on earth is this category themed with the US flag - are politics of interest to usa citizens?'

Re:politics section

[Detritus]

Considering the United States fought a major war on the Korean peninsula under the auspices of the UN, and still has a substantial number of military forces in South Korea, North Korea having nukes is a serious matter for South Korea and the United States.

Re:politics section

[mgs1000]

why on earth is this category themed with the US flag

Because the mods can consildate all of the anti-American posts in one convenient place!

Re:politics section

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the section was created in the runup to the 2004 US Election...

Re:politics section

[Xoro]

Because the politics section was invented during the US elections, and many international slashdotters scream, stamp and foam at the mouth when they are presented with "US-centric" content.

But as is usual, what began as a concession has been reframed as a grave insult.

Re:politics section

[Peyna]

Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

It is worth noting that there is a Japanese Slashdot run by VA Japan. While we helped them a little in their early days, they essentially run their own content without any real involvement from us... none of us can read Kanji! There are currently no plans to do other language or nation specific Slashdot sites.

Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 10/3/04

Made in North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. My toaster was made in North Korea and it sucks.

Re:Made in North Korea

[mgs1000]

Well, my North Korean-made vacuum cleaner makes toast!

Re:Made in North Korea

[Guppy06]

I don't think DPRK has the industrial capacity to make a toaster.

Besides, what would they test in the toaster for quality control? Other than the hands of people caught (alive) attempting to escape to China, that is...

(There's something seriously wrong with a place when you're trying to escape to the PRC.)

Checklist

[FunWithHeadlines]

Lesse...

North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check
No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check

Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...

Re: Checklist

[Black Parrot]

Lesse...

North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check
No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check

Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...

You neglected the all-important:

Has major portion of world's oil supply: nope.

Re:Checklist

[boojee]

State sponsor of militant islamic terrorism: BIG no check To the Bush-haters, this war is about everything except what it has always been about from the beginning...

Re: Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up

Re:Checklist

[Valar]

Hmm... I as I recall it is the 'War on Terror'. Not the 'War on Some Kinds of Terror'. In fact, it is the policy of the administration (rightfully so) that this war is _not_ about islamic terrorism, but rather all terrorism. I don't know about everyone else, but I find NK+Nukes=Pretty Damn Terrifying.

Re: Checklist

[at_slashdot]

Actually is like this:
WMDs: Check -- No troops than.

When US decieded to invade Irak I was sure Irak didn't have WMDs. Just think what would a atomic blast would do to an invading force and US would not even be able to respond in kind, because the invading force would be a legitimate military target.

Re:Checklist

[ggvaidya]

WMDs: Check

As in, actually has real working true-blue weapons of mass destruction. That's why.

Re: Checklist

[jkovacik]

I'm getting pretty sick of knee-jerk, ill-informed responses.

North Korea has everything Iraq had, and more. But oil isn't the issue.

The fact that North Korea is an ally of China, a major nuclear power with the resources to be an actual threat to the US, and an invasion of North Korea would lead directly to war with China, is the foremost reason why they won't be invaded.

Honestly, do you people think that *everyone* in the State Department are drooling idiots??

Re:Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglect to mention that NK is situated to be a direct threat to major economic powers like Japan and South Korea, and that it borders Russia and China, which would make an attack of NK complicated diplomatically, to say the least.

Re:Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

You act as if diplomacy was never utilized with the "other country" you refer to. Let's not forget the decades worth of failing diplomacy and security resolution violations that led up to the Iraq war.

Re:Checklist

[mshiltonj]

Your checklist is incomplete. Here: I've revised it...

North Korea Pre-Invasion Checklist:

• Dictator: Check
  
• Oppressed people: Check
  
• No legitimate elections: Check
  
• WMDs: Check
  
• Threatening to the West: Check
  
• Oil Reserves: No
  
• Will help President's father's legacy: No
  

Re:Checklist

[ryanvm]

Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...

Do you ignore the obvious or are you just not aware of it?

North Korea is much more dangerous to disarm than Iraq ever was. Not only do they now have nuclear weapons, but for years they've had one of the largest armies in the world as well as an incredibly dangerous number of artillery cannons ready to turn South Korea into a pile of rubble.

The actual invasion of Iraq resulted in somewhere around 8,000 civilian casualties. Invading North Korea could easily cost millions of civilian lives.

Re: Checklist

[St. Arbirix]

You neglected the all-important:

Has major portion of world's oil supply: nope.

Which is to say that N. Korea will just fizzle out all on its own. It also wouldn't be a huge influence on surrounding countries if it were "liberated" which was apparently the idea behind Iraq.

If anyone invaded North Korea it would cost a hefty load of money, get hundreds of thousands of South Koreans shot, and tick off China. When it was over you wouldn't be able to strike trade deals with the country because its economy would be devastated and it doesn't sound like it has vast resources to borrow against. It'd be a money pit even more so than it is now because we'd no longer be looking down on a dictatorship. Anyone who invaded would be held responsible for the outcome of the country by the world at large ("See what you've done? You clean it up, it's your mess.") and even though it would improve life for the population of N. Korea the invaders wouldn't get any credit.

And then you'd have China to deal with. They'd no longer have their little Korean bitch to point at and say "See? That's socialism gone bad, but we're not like that. Life is so much better for our people here." They're right for now, but with NK gone they'll tire of living in a fish-bowl. Perhaps they'll turn around and "liberate" other countries to bring communism to the people much like the U.S. has been doing for the mixed bag we call "democracy".

Re: Checklist

[nickos]

Don't forget the WMD bit - the US only picks fights it knows it will win. That's why Iraq was attacked but North Korea will be left alone...

Re: Checklist

[Black Parrot]

> Honestly, do you people think that *everyone* in the State Department are drooling idiots??

Uh... yes.

Re:Checklist

[FunWithHeadlines]

I didn't forget the diplomacy in Iraq, an effort that worked to disarm Saddam quite effectively for years. It did not lead up to the Iraq war. It was short-circuited so that the Iraq war could take place.

Re:Checklist

[FunWithHeadlines]

I am aware of it, but I was using all the similarities deliberately. In fact, that is the reason why North Korea won't be attacked -- they can fight back.

Your toll of 8,000 civilian casualties in Iraq seems an order of magnitude too low. That's closer to the death toll in Afghanistan. Unless maybe you are only counting the civilians killed in the early days of the war, and ignoring the next coupe of years or something.

Re:Checklist

[awhelan]

- Will help president's legacy: Check

This is the biggest reason I would expect to see us invade N. Korea. Now that Bush has been re-elected he cares less what people think of him 'now' and more what the history books will have to say about him. He wants to be remembered a crusader for "good". That's why he's appointing people to clean up the airwaves, fighting against gay marriage, and taking on this "Axis of Evil". The presidents that we remember are the ones we had during wars. I honestly believe that the reason we are still in Iraq is because Bush wants to be remembered as the man who brought Democracy there. If it was really about WMD, we would have taken off as soon as we realized there weren't any. If it was really about oil, we would have taken off as soon as we realized this war would cost us more in money and soldiers than any amount of oil we could possibly get out of them. Bush is padding his resume by adding "Brought democracy to Iraq" despite the massive cost so that he will be remembered for it. "Stopped North Korean military threat." would be something he'd like to add, but it's not possible with our military so overworked as it is.

Note: I generally get karma-killed when I post in politics and don't know why... This isn't supposed to be a troll or flamebait. If you disagree post back, I would really like to hear what you think.

Re:Checklist

[Citizen of Earth]

We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured?

Millions. Perhaps Tens of Millions. You know--the kinds of numbers of dead that only pacifism toward a dictatorship can produce. (These are generally civilians who die of starvation, though there is the occasional genocide. North Korea. China. Vietnam. Somalia. Sudan. Zimbabwe. Congo. Iraq.)

Re:Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, that's what you do to diplomacy when it fails. You "short-circuit it" and move on to the next plan of action that will bring you closer to your goal. In the case of Iraq, the goal/policy was regime change and the next plan of action was the removal of Saddam and his regime by force. The point is, diplomacy was tried first with Iraq and it failed. Just as it was tried first with North Korea and it seems to be failing now. Diplomacy can only take things so far and can only accomplish so much with certain people. In the case of Saddam, he did not properly disarm, he continued to pursue and grow his WMD prospects, he harbored and supported terrorists, and continuously violated the agreements that he made since the first Gulf War that allowed him to keep his country. What a huge mistake it was to attempt the diplomatic route for so long.

Re:Checklist

[ryanvm]

Your toll of 8,000 civilian casualties in Iraq seems an order of magnitude too low.

That is about the middle ground of most estimates on the civilian death toll during the actual invasion. Yes, total occupation deaths are much higher. But I intentionally used the invasion numbers because speculating on the casualties of a North Korean invasion are completely useless.

Re: Checklist

[jonhuang]

It's not the lack of oil.

It's that seoul is within artillary range of the DMZ. The city is being held hostage; an invasion would flatten it in days.

Re: Checklist

[NitsujTPU]

Yeah, I noticed now the price of gas really dropped when we invaded Iraq. It's a good thing we did that, now that the price to fill my car is $30... down from the $20 it was a couple years ago, before the war.

I guess that that's just inflation, since everything else is 150% as expensive as it used to be.

Re: Checklist

[NitsujTPU]

It really is much better to start wars that will get everyone in your country killed... isn't it?

I mean, wouldn't it be far better if we started off WWIII... kicking it off with aggression towards NK, than then getting the Chinese army to come in and start invading out allies.

Yes, we really should have jumped into NK instead of war with Iraq. Who would want to miss out on the massive killing that that would have caused? Especially if they have nukes!

Re: Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Also forgot
Army: Won't collapse at first signs of shooting

Re:Checklist

[ryanvm]

But I intentionally used the invasion numbers because speculating on the casualties of a North Korean invasion are completely useless

Err, make that occupation.

Re: Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the same goddamned war. One war does not equal another war. Hell, Iraq 1 would have been a different issue if it had been fought in, say, 1971 instead of 1991. It's awfully close to the Soviet Union and the Soviet ally Iran.

Before we go after North Korea, we need a treaty with China that agrees that they will have significant (even controlling) interest in post-war North Korea. No need to turn a regional war into WWIII.

DJ

Re: Checklist

[FunWithHeadlines]

That's short-term thinking. The quest for oil was long-term thinking. It was about oil. You just haven't seen the long-term results yet.

Re: Checklist

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

That's not the all-important. Remember that "WMD" is a vague category. If I remember correctly, some car bomber was arrested (domestic crime) a few years ago for a WMD.

Saddam's WMDs, regardless of whether they existed or whether they now exist, were not as threatening to an invading army as Kim's. Moreover, Kim is in an excellent position to destroy US overseas interests (much of the Asian economy, and US Pacific bases) at the first sign of trouble.

We really didn't have any chance of losing to Iraq. That's the all-important difference.

Re:Checklist

[Shihar]

I think you forgot something on your list.

Has chemical, biological, nuclear and conventional weaposn aimed at South Korea: Check

The US might very well merrily invade North Korea over nuclear weapons if it wasn't for the fact that the resulting war would make the casualties for Iraq (civilian and military) look like pocket change. Millions of South Koreans and Japanese civilians would be dead in the first hour of the war. Last time I checked, we were their allies and generally committed to not killing off large percentages of their populations with our actions.

The second a war is fought in the Koreas, you can pretty much expect to cause more casualties then all other wars put together. I am not saying that Iraq is a happy fun land, but comparing taking out Iraq to taking out North Korea, is the difference between beating the shit out of a 12 year old bully, and taking out a guy with dead man's switch to a chemical weapon strapped to his back capable of wiping out a city. The two are not even in the same league.

We hate Bush rhetoric aside, comparing the two is just stupid.

Re:Checklist

[tunah]

WMDs: Check

Therein lies the problem. They can blow shit up.

Re:Checklist

[eventhorizon5]

Ever heard of the Korean War? Thought not...

"Send in the troops!" - already did, 50 years ago.
"What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead?" - we've been using diplomacy for over 50 years. I guess a century might be better lol.
"We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured?" - hmm... what happened to South Korea back then?

-eventhorizon

Re: Checklist

[NitsujTPU]

It wasn't about oil.

Then again, other countries resisting us was partly because they were getting free oil in the oil for food program.

If other countries were really that upset about it, then we would have seen their tanks on the Iraqi border.

Re: Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, there was corruption and cynicism on all sides. But yes, oil was a key factor in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, plans for which were drawn up before 9/11 ever happened. All the rest were just excuses. WMDs? Several hostile nations have them, but there's no invasion there. Islamic fundamentalism? Same story. Oppressive regimes? Nope, nobody cares. But Afghanistan and Iraq? Ah, there we have oil.

There is also the neo-con dream of spreading democratic customers throughout the world. So it wasn't just oil. But the fact that the U.S. is busy building permanent military bases in Iraq should tell us all that there are bigger pictures at work than just getting rid of Saddam.

Re:Checklist

[kernhe]

Too bad about that other country...
You mean: Too bad about those other contries...

Re: Checklist

[NitsujTPU]

Certainly, but it's not oil. Dropping a couple billion dollars on a war for Iraqi oil that we won't keep is pointless.

Sticking a base in the middle of hostile territory isn't a bad little objective though.

Re: Checklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the U.S. is going to keep the Iraqi oil. That's the point, and it's two-fold: 1. Make sure whoever runs the country plays ball with the U.S.; and 2. Prevent Saddam from pricing oil in Euros instead of dollars.

Re: Checklist

[NitsujTPU]

I suppose that the Illuminati planned this out as well?

India,US,Russia,China,Britain,France ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Paksitan, Iran, Israel, South Africa, etc. ...

Join the club!

It's a 1940s technology.

What's the news? and what's the big deal?

Admitting it

[Anonymous Custard]

North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

Yeah, just like I admit to having a nice new Dell 2001FP 20.1" Flat Panel display.

They're proud to "admit" this, because they know it means no one will make a direct attack against them.

They're not admitting anything, they're warning other countries to stay back.

Range. . .

[InsideTheAsylum]

Well, the NK missile range is only what.. couple of hundred miles? They could hold japan hostage, but I don't think that their missiles can quite reach the US.

Re:Range. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

...yet.

Well

[cca93014]

In Soviet Russia, er...

Cheers! Now a Socialist State

[Anonymous Coward]

Can check the aggressive Imperialism of Bush Chimpler's Reich!
Look in the mirror AmeriKKKa that is why you deserve what you get.

Debian!

[sammykrupa]

Great! Now back to Knopix vs. Debian! BTW Debian!!

Raise your hands...

[rscrawford]

...if you were surprised by this admission. Anyone?

*crickets*

Thought not. See, North Korea is a real threat. Probably why Bush is ignoring it. Unlike those massive armed-to-the-teeth maniacs hoarding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Iraq. Good thing we went in there. Seems like every man, woman, and child there had a shoulder mounted nuclear missile launcher.

Re:Raise your hands...

[Bob(TM)]

Ignoring it is part of the dance. A direct confrontation gains the US absolutely nothing and makes the US allies in the region (key trading partners, sources of critical technological components, and large financiers of the federal debt) extremely nervous.

From a foreign policy perspective, either the NK government will collapse under its own self-destructing policies (extreme isolationism, decimated economy, and poor populous living conditions), it will lash out and the regional powers (and the US) will be forced to respond, or there is a protracted brinksmanship dance that preserves the status-quo. Looks like the last one ... they're in the "play-hard-to-get stage."

Re:Raise your hands...

[Ironsides]

I don't know much about most of that, but NK and SK recently started an economic zone where SK companies could employ NK people. Not much, but it does help the economy of NK a bit. Not sure if it will make much of a diference in the long run, but it is interesting that the two Koreas are working somewhat together still.

Re:Raise your hands...

[workindev]

Thought not. See, North Korea is a real threat. Probably why Bush is ignoring it.

What makes you think we are ignoring it? Are you under the mistaken impression that our first response should be full scale military invasion without diplomacy?

Re:Raise your hands...

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think we are ignoring it? Are you under the mistaken impression that our first response should be full scale military invasion without diplomacy?

Isn't that standard operating procedure since the Iraq war?

Re:Raise your hands...

[workindev]

Isn't that standard operating procedure since the Iraq war?

Are you ignorant of the 13 years of diplomacy prior to the Iraq war where we were working towards a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the conflict without military force? Only when that failed did we attack.

Re:Raise your hands...

[rscrawford]

I thought that was the Bush Doctrine: Attack Before Evidence. Worked in Iraq, or so Bush tells us.

Re:Raise your hands...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, who the hell is modding this tripe insightful? Bush is +not+ ignoring it, and no US administration (Democrat or Republican) ever has. Do you really, honestly think that everyone in the White House is a bumbling fool who couldn't find their dick if the light wasn't on?

There's a big reason the US can't just invade the DPRK, and it's called Seoul. It's just south of the North Korean border, and would be rubble before the first US troops were over the wall (so to speak).

Re:Raise your hands...

[rscrawford]

To be honest, I, too, was surprised that someone modded my comment up. It was a fatuous thing I spurted up on my keyboard before I had any coffee.

As to whether I "really, honestly think that everyone in the White House is a bumbling fool who couldn't find their dick if the light wasn't on?" The answer is, No, of course not. Only the President. Cheney, for example, has proven himself to be dangerously intelligent (and is the main reason I really hope nothing bad happens to Bush). Sadly, the only person in the administration who I thought had an ounce of integrity and honor (even after shilling the dangerous lies of Bush & Co. to the UN) has resigned the position of Secretary of State.

I know that we won't be invading DPRK anytime soon anyway. I hadn't considered Seoul. The main reason I was thinking that was because we've already demonstrated, in the late 60's and early 70's, how effective our military is in dealing with combat in that region of the world. Better to take on enemies who don't pose any threat to us. Like Iraq.

Re:Raise your hands...

[ralphclark]

The years of "peaceful diplomacy" (eg bombing civilian facilities, and withholding food and medical supplies) I remember those, sure.

The bit I have trouble understanding is the bit where according to you it suddenly "failed", providing the jusitification for an attack. See, Hussein was bending over backwards to comply with all US demands, and the UN inspectors said sanctions were working fine and that there were no weapons. The rest of the world was happy to continue with a policy of containment. But to you and the Bush regime, Iraq was now suddenly a target for invasion.

Lets not go through this all again. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Iraq was not a threat. The intelligence community knew it. The US and UK governments knew it. The reasons for invasion lay elsewhere (hint: all wars are fought for economic reasons). The whole world is aware of this. Including everybody in your own country who doesn't have his head up his ass. Why don't you get it?

Re:Raise your hands...

[FleaPlus]

And what exactly do you propose the US do about North Korea? Just about any military solution would result in millions of people in Seoul dying in a matter minutes.

Re:Raise your hands...

[workindev]

The bit I have trouble understanding is the bit where according to you it suddenly "failed", providing the jusitification for an attack. See, Hussein was bending over backwards to comply with all US demands, and the UN inspectors said sanctions were working fine and that there were no weapons. The rest of the world was happy to continue with a policy of containment. But to you and the Bush regime, Iraq was now suddenly a target for invasion.

If you read any of the weapons reports issued by the ISG and the UN you would know that Saddam wasn't bending over backwards to comply with US demands. He was bending over backwards to create the illusion of compliance so we would leave him alone. His main goal was to end the UN sanctions so he could resume his weapons programs that he had done a pretty damn good job of hiding from the UN inspectors.

Lets not go through this all again. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Iraq was not a threat. The intelligence community knew it. The US and UK governments knew it. The reasons for invasion lay elsewhere (hint: all wars are fought for economic reasons). The whole world is aware of this. Including everybody in your own country who doesn't have his head up his ass. Why don't you get it?

Why don't you get it? The reasons for the war have been clearly justified by our subsequent investigations. Saddam Hussein was clearly a threat to the peace and security of the region, and was in defiance of international order for 13 years.

Take a step back and look at what you are saying! Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator who:

Tried to illegally expand his borders TWICE

Attacked a non-hostile state at least FOUR times

Used Chemical weapons on a number of occasions, both against Iran and against his own people

Publically stated his goal of obtaining Nuclear and Biological Weapons

Was on the US State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for over 20 years

Was directly responsible for between 500,000 and 2,000,000 deaths of his own people

Had participated actively in international terrorism, including a plot to assassinate a former US president, and a plot to bomb a radio facility in Prague

Had paid families of terrorist bombers on LIVE TV

Had offered political assylum to Osama Bin Laden in 1998

Was currently providing assylum to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters that escaped Afghanistan in December 2001

Was in direct defiance of 17 unanimously passed chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions

Had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that the UN Inspectors knew about, including 30,000 liters of Anthrax

How on earth can you claim that this was not a threat? How on earth can you claim that the world is not any safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power?

Combine the above facts with the fact that we just had got our butts kicked on 9/11 by a similar threat that we had ignored, and leaving him alone so he could write the playbook for any rouge despot who wanted to defy the US and the UN was NOT an option.

Re:Raise your hands...

[ralphclark]

Regarding UN reports, this is disingenuous of you. The final reports from the UN inspection teams let by Hans Blix etc stated plainly that sanctions were working and there was no evidence of WMDs. Let me spell this out for you since you seem to find it hard to comprehend. The expert sent to determine whether there were any weapons on his final visit said that he had concluded there were none.

As to whether Sadaam was bending over backwards to comply genuinely or merely to seem to comply genuinely, who cares what he felt about it? The point was to make him comply and that is, (according to both the inspectors *and* UK and US intelligence) exactly what he was doing, whether he was enjoying it or not.

Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Sadaam used to be. But it is a straw man. The charge sheet is completely irrelevant to the question of "was he a big enough menace to justify invasion". None of these crimes made him a unique and direct threat to US national security which is presumably why the exaggerations about possible possession of WMD's had to be concocted as a pretext for war.

As to whether the earth is safer without Sadaam Hussein running Iraq - I am sure that some of his closest neighbours feel safer. But most of the world is I think a lot more worried about the new jackboot politics of the neocons in Washington. After all, Sadaam had very little capability to deliver destruction outside of his own immediate region. The US however has demonstrated both its capability to wage wars of shocking destructiveness against relatively defenseless enemies on the other side of the world (with an almost total disregard for tens of thousands of civilian casualties), *and* its willingness to do so regardless of all international opinion.

If the Iraq invasion was meant to be a response to 9/11 then it was truly an overreaction on a major scale. I'm not even going to get into how the White House tried for a long time to make it look like Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and failed to make it stick. But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on. In the eyes of the rest of the world today, it's not reasonable and it's not acceptable. Especially when they are, as you were ready to admit, bent over backwards and pleading with you not to do it.

In your Hollywood movies, the hero is the guy who is viciously attacked but then goes after the perpetrator, gives him a taste of his own medicine thus humiliating him and turning him into a snivelling cowering wreck. Then he shows mercy and backs off saying "let that be a lesson". But the image of America today is of a protagonist who, with only a bloody nose (4,000 dead) in the first instance inflicted by someone else entirely who he couldn't get to, couldn't even be satisfied with winning against some other convenient bully of choice but had to beat seven colours of shit out of him as well in order that everybody would know who was the strongest.

Well, congratulations - so you are the strongest bully in the playground. But you're no hero, you're nobody's policeman and if this is you doing unasked favours for the rest of the world, no thanks and please don't do it in our name. We'd rather deal with a dozen small-time bullies on our own terms and take a bloody nose occasionally (the price of freedom maybe), than have to cope with a lone superpower bully who is bigger than everybody and beholden to nobody.

Re:Raise your hands...

[Xyrus]

You are a troll. Or ignorant of US histroy. Or just plain ignorant.

The US has been responsible for more deaths, destruction and chaos since the 1950's than Saddam ever has.

We have WMD's. We disobey the UN fairly regularly. We destroyed two third world countries, inflicted thousands of deaths (civilian and military), and manage alienate a good protion of the world in the process.

And that was just in four years.

The world views the US as a threat, but a threat that they can't do anything about. We are arrogant, and belligerent. We're also hypocrites.

You gave a littany about the crimes of Saddam, but you overlook the crimes this country has commited and are still commiting right now.

You list looks rather paltry when viewed by a country who now wipes it's ass with the Geneva conventions.

Iraq was not a threat. By the time they could have rebuilt their country, Saddam would have died or have been replaced.

When we invaded, they had one scud missle that worked. None of their fighter craft could fly due to lack of parts. They had few tanks that still worked and most of their soldiers lacked ammunition for their guns. The infrastructure was barely holding together, electricty was flaky at best and clean drinking water was a rarity. Most of their factories were still in shambles, along with their entire economy. Two/thirds of the country was a regularly patrolled no fly zone.

Now, while this was going on, two countries saw what was going on and diverted the resources towards making a deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them, because they were on some Texan's hit list.

So instead of dealing with the real threats, we made up one and now after all the ash is falling we see not one but two "rogue" states with weapons that go boom.

The sad thing is, we already new they had the capability. Iraq had no such capability and the reports themselves said it would have taken a decade to get Iraq back to production capacity.

All this in the name of...what? Terrorism? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and some very thick documents detail this quite explicitly. WMD? They didn't have them. Freeing an oppressed country?

"How on earth can you claim that this was not a threat? How on earth can you claim that the world is not any safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? "

The world will be a lot safer when countries don't go around forcing their idealogies and influence down other countrys throats.

Saddam was contained and not any real immediate threat. The bigger, more legitamate threats were ignored, mainly because they would have been a harder sell. But The rhetoric about Iran is starting to take on a familiar sound.

"Combine the above facts with the fact that we just had got our butts kicked on 9/11 by a similar threat that we had ignored"

Wrong. Dead wrong. We were not ignoring terrorism. Certain individuals were ignoring terrorism.

Anyway, I've posted before on why terrorism is the elast of our worries.

"And leaving him alone so he could write the playbook for any rouge despot who wanted to defy the US and the UN was NOT an option."

By that logic I guess we should just go and invade any country we please in order to secure ourselves.

Remember, when you go to point the finger at others make sure you don't have shit on your finger.

~X~

Re:Raise your hands...

[cheezedawg]

Regarding UN reports, this is disingenuous of you. The final reports from the UN inspection teams let by Hans Blix etc stated plainly that sanctions were working and there was no evidence of WMDs. Let me spell this out for you since you seem to find it hard to comprehend. The expert sent to determine whether there were any weapons on his final visit said that he had concluded there were none.

What the hell are you talking about? What final report? UNMOVIC hasn't issued a "final" report yet. They are supposed to release their first draft of a compendium if Iraq's proscribed weapons and programs next month (March 2005).

And UNMOVIC has not said that there is "no evidence" of WMDs. I think you are confusing some things here. They have said that there is no evidence that there were large WMD stockpiles left, but they can't rule out the possibility of smaller WMD caches spread across Iraq (including over 500 155mm artillery shells filled with high grade mustard gas that Saddam's Special Republican Guard is believed to have had as late as March 2003). This is all covered in their latest quarterly report.

And the stockpiles are only part of the story. We found dozens of proscribed WMD programs and activities in Iraq that the UN did not know about. All of these were direct violations of Iraq's cease-fire obligations that the Security Council had given explicit authorization to enforce using military action.

UNMOVIC addressed the ISG findings in their last quarterly report (November, 2004). In that report, they acknowledge that the ISG did in fact find proscribed weapons, programs, and procurement activities that the UN did not know about. Iraq was clearly in violation of Resolution 1441!

Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Saddam used to be.

Numerous others? Like who? Who else was in violation of 17 Chapter 7 Security Council Resolutions? Who else was under international orders to disarm? Who else had shown a willingness to use chemical weapons in the past, launched unprovoked missile attacks against neighboring countries, tried to illegally expand their borders, and had direct ties to numerous terrorist organizations? Sure- there are other bad people in this world, but you cannot seriously claim that Iraq did not pose a unique threat.

But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on.

There was a lot more than just an "off chance" that Iraq would resort to terrorism- they already had multiple times! We foiled numerous terror plots against us or other western countries throughout the 1990s. And intelligence from around the world suggested that Iraq was still trying. Just how many "bloody noses" do you expect us to accept as a price of freedom?

Re:Raise your hands...

[ralphclark]

What final report?

Blix's final report before the US told him to get out. I mean final in the temporal sense rather than any spurious formal sense. It's the only final report that's worth a damn, because it's the most up to date inspection report that was available to the US when they made the final decision to go ahead.

They are supposed to release their first draft[...]next month

Any reports that come out now are tainted by a political necessity for the UN to follow along with the US in order to avoid losing all semblance of control - and by months of US occupation wherein all sorts of "evidence" suddenly turns up, meager though it may be. I'm only interested in Blix's impressions at the time therefore. Not in your neocon-rewritten history.

In any event it would be no surprise and no foul if Sadaam had found a way to keep working on some weapons programs. Just the US has ignored its own weapons treaty obligations in the past. Don't bother to pretend otherwise. The point of these treaties and enforced resolutions was to slow Sadaam down enough to contain him, and they were working fine according to Blix's team. The odd empty shells containing traces of this that or the other don't alter that.

Who else was in violation of [...] Security Council Resolutions?

Israel was in violation of several UN resolutions and the US took no action against *them*. If you're not going to enforce these resolutions impartially then you can hardly use them to justify your actions. As for orders to disarm, Blix proved they had done so most effectively.

As for willingness to use WMDs, to launch unprovoked attacks, to expand their borders, and direct ties to terrorist organizations - stop, you're making me laugh. By these definitions, the US is the world's public enemy no. 1 because it has done all these things and will no doubt continue to do so in the future.

And by the way no link was found between Sadaam and al Qaeda so that won't wash either.

Washington neocons have expressed a fondness for rewriting history, so I've little doubt that when each nation finds themself in a position where they owe the US a favour, they will surely manage to invent some piece of old intelligence which will be trotted out as retrospective justification for the US actions in Iraq and over the course of time, eventualy the current facts will be overturned or at least muddied somewhat. But this is meant only to fool the naive, which is most pepole and sufficient for the intended purpose.

Even if you thought that elements inside Iraq *were* sponsoring terrorists that is (under international law) insufficient reason to go to war, which is why the whole world was against it. But the US have regularly thumbed their noses at international law. Your famous constitution even appears to demand it. It's quite clear who is the *real* threat to global security.

Re:Raise your hands...

[cheezedawg]

Blix's final report before the US told him to get out.

What? Have you even read that report? What Blix said was that Iraq has not come to a "genuine acceptance of the disarmament," and that the 12,000 page declaration they made in Dec 2002 "regrettably...does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number" about their compliance. Here is UNMOVIC's 175 page report of unresolved disarmament issues that they released that same month.

I mean final in the temporal sense rather than any spurious formal sense.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? They haven't issued a final report- period, and you look foolish trying to claim that they have.

Any reports that come out now are tainted by a political necessity for the UN to follow along with the US in order to avoid losing all semblance of control - and by months of US occupation wherein all sorts of "evidence" suddenly turns up, meager though it may be. I'm only interested in Blix's impressions at the time therefore. Not in your neocon-rewritten history.

In other words, you are only interested in "facts" that support your pre-conceived opinions.

In any event it would be no surprise and no foul if Sadaam had found a way to keep working on some weapons programs.

No foul? Again, I suggest you read the relevant resolutions, because it is clear that you haven't:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...
10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above

...
12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above;

...
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

Just the US has ignored its own weapons treaty obligations in the past.

And just what weapons treaties has the US ignored? Are you referring to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States? Because
#1- the other party to the treaty doesn't exist anymore, and
#2- we didn't ignore our obligations, we followed the defined protocol to withdraw from the obsolete treaty

The point of these treaties and enforced resolutions was to slow Sadaam down enough to contain him, and they were working fine according to Blix's team.

Again, I refer you to Resolution 687, which plainly states that the goal of the resolutions was the "establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of [WMD]," and to "restore international peace and security." And Blix specifically said that Iraq was not in compliance with his obligations.

Israel was in violation of several UN resolutions and the US took no action against *them*

I specifically said Chapter 7 UN Securit

Re:Raise your hands...

[cheezedawg]

The US has been responsible for more deaths, destruction and chaos since the 1950's than Saddam ever has.

Holy cow. It wasn't the US's fault that Kim-il-Sung invaded South Korea. It wasn't the US's fault that Ho Chi Minh encouraged an insurgency against South Vietnam to prime them for a communist takeover. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam invaded Iran to start the third bloodiest war of the century. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam then decided to "annex" Kuwait. It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam starved his own people during the 1990s just for propaganda.

We are not the bad guys here. Your anger is sorely misplaced.

We have WMD's.

Yes- in fact our status as one of the 5 nuclear states in the NPT mandates that we maintain WMDs so we can defend the non-nuclear states that are signatory to the NPT.

We disobey the UN fairly regularly.

No we don't. The actions we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly authorized by the UN.

We destroyed two third world countries

My goodness. Do you seriously look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think that we destroyed them?

Iraq posed a significant threat to us. Whats more than that, Saddam was a big destabilizing force in a very volatile region. Our action in Iraq has not only eliminated one of the biggest threats to our national security, but it attacks the root of the problem by spreading freedom to the part of the world that is responsible for most of the terrorist threats that we face.

So instead of dealing with the real threats, we made up one and now after all the ash is falling we see not one but two "rogue" states with weapons that go boom.

What makes you think that we aren't dealing with these other threats? We tried diplomacy with Iraq for over 12 years. And our action in Iraq makes it more likely that diplomacy will succeed in Iran and the DPRK.

All this in the name of...what? Terrorism?Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and some very thick documents detail this quite explicitly.

Nobody claims that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I hate to break this to you, but there are more terrorist threats to us than just al Qaeda. Iraq directly supported many terrorist organizations, and they had been caught plotting attacks against us several times throughout the 1990s. International intelligence indicated that they were still plotting against us. How long do you want to wait for this threat to materialize?

WMD? They didn't have them.

They did not have the WMD stockpiles that we thought, but they did have banned WMD programs and infrastructure. The ISG found over a dozen proscribed programs that the UN did not know about- any one of them was enough to justify military action.

Freeing an oppressed country?

Yes. A free and democratic Iraq will put enormous pressure on the governments in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to reform, and will help stabilize the whole region.

I have never understood this fixation some people have with blaming all of the world's ills on the US. I believe that it is this pessimism and myopia that is preventing the Democrats from winning elections.

Re:Raise your hands...

[Xyrus]

"Holy cow. It wasn't the US's fault that Kim-il-Sung invaded South Korea."

Our involvement in that area was nothing more than an excuse to follow the rules of McArthiesm. The US used communist then how they're using terrorism now.

"It wasn't the US's fault that Ho Chi Minh encouraged an insurgency against South Vietnam to prime them for a communist takeover."

And so what if he did? You use communism like it's a bad word. There's absolutely nothing wrong behind the ideals of communism. If humans were perfect, this would be the perfect government. But we have petty differences and idealogies that make the world what it is today.

Communism is a great theory, however no one yet has managed to implement it correctly.

If we had kept our noses out of their business, perhaps there would be a few hundred thousand people enjoying life today.

Vietnam, like Iraq, posed no significant threat to the US. Wars should only be fought as a last resort, and in self-defense.

"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam invaded Iran to start the third bloodiest war of the century."

Actually we were very involved in that war. I doubt Saddam would have attacked Iran if he didn't have support of the US to back him up.

Again, you seem to gloss over the fact that the US actively helps out all kinds of bad evil people, as long as they help the US further it's agenda.

"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam then decided to "annex" Kuwait."

Not directly. Saddam thought that the US would turn a blind eye to the whole thing, because we were such good buddies. What Saddam didn't realize was that we like our oil far more than we liked him.

"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam starved his own people during the 1990s just for propaganda."

What has this got to do with anything? Is this a reason for invading another country? Then why aren't we in the Sudan? What about all those little places in the world where human rights abuses occur daily, like China?

If we're out to take out dictatorships, why is Cuba still around? Putin has repealed most of the democratic reforms in Russia and implemented some highly questionable practices. Why aren't we marching our armies through Moscow?

And last but not least, what about here in our own country. We have people being thown in jail and tortured without due process. The Geneva convetions were set up for a good reason. Don't expect captured American soldiers to be treated any differently.

"We are not the bad guys here. Your anger is sorely misplaced."

I believe your viewpoint is sorely misplaced. Do you honestly think that other countries don't view us as the bad guy. How about you put yourself on the receiving end of a GBU-28 bomb that just killed your family. What would you think of the "liberating US".

Good and Bad are very much in the eye of the beholder. And there are large number of people who think we are the bad guys.

"The actions we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly authorized by the UN."

I don't know if you missed it, but the US invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN. The UN and many of our allies are pissed at us for this very reason.

"My goodness. Do you seriously look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think that we destroyed them?"

Hmm...let's see...destroyed infrastructure...wrecked buildings...destroyed lives...thousands dead...rampant insurgency...demolished economy...

No, I'd say their in pretty good shape. How about you go over and live there for a few months, then get back to me on how good they got it now.

"Iraq posed a significant threat to us."

You have yet to state solid evidence to this effect. So far, you've used words like could, would, and should. Very weak for stating this assertion such as this.

The facts are in. Despite Saddam's ambitions, he was contained. He may have wanted WMD, but had no infrastructure to make them. Nor could they have rebuilt the infrastructure any time in the

Re:Raise your hands...

[cheezedawg]

I am not going to respond to everything to try to keep this from ballooning into a gigantic post, but I'll respond to some of your points.

Our involvement in that area was nothing more than an excuse to follow the rules of McArthiesm.

Why don't you ask the South Koreans if they feel the same? Or maybe they prefer scraping bark off of trees for dinner like their counterparts to the north?

Communism is a great theory, however no one yet has managed to implement it correctly.

That's about the same thing as saying "A perpetual motion engine is a great theory, just nobody has implemented it correctly yet." Sure- the ideas behind communism are great, but there is a reason why nobody has been able to implement it correctly (on a large scale, at least).

If we had kept our noses out of their business, perhaps there would be a few hundred thousand people enjoying life today.

Perhaps if we had ignored it, there would be hundreds of millions of people living under oppressive totalitarian regimes without basic freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

If we're out to take out dictatorships, why is Cuba still around? Putin has repealed most of the democratic reforms in Russia and implemented some highly questionable practices. Why aren't we marching our armies through Moscow?

We are not out to "take out" dictatorships- we are out to address threats to our security. This really isn't very hard to understand.

I don't know if you missed it, but the US invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN.

Wrong. The US invaded Iraq using the direct authorization for military force that was unanimously granted in resolution 687 and reaffirmed 16 times after that, including resolution 1441 that gave Saddam one final chance to comply.

You see a country that doesn't like you threaten and beat the shit out of another country and you expect them to NOT TO DEVELOPE DETERRENTS?!?

I expect countries to live up to their international obligations. North Korea has had a secret uranium enrichment program for the past decade in violation of both the NPT and our 1994 bilateral framework.

If Iran is also developing nuclear weapons, it is in violation of the NPT as well.

Now, I believe that our action in Iraq will help resolve these situations peacefully for several reasons:
- The Shia majority in Iraq (led by Sistani) is very pro-democracy, and they are also friendly with Iran. This will have a big influence on the pro-democracy movements inside Iran. Just look at the number of reformist candidates that are running for President in Iran's July election to see this. There will be big changes in Iran this year!
- Iran, Germany, France, and the UK are VERY motivated to succeed in their talks to resolve these issues.
- North Korea is also motivated to resolve this crisis. Their comments this week were a transparent attempt to get back to bilateral talks with us because they feel this will give them legitimacy and prompt concessions and aid from us (like we gave them in 1994). The 6-party talks are the most likely way to resolve this peacefully.

Ah the Washinton Post. No that's an unbiased source of information right there.

What a weak-minded response. This was widely reported last summer (1, 2, 3, 4).

Are we talking about the same country? Even if they had plans, their infrastructure was so wrecked they were barely maintaining electricty and clean water.

All I can say is, read the ISG reports, because it is obvious that you haven't.

PLANS!= WMD. We have thousands of military plans to inva

Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago, so why other nation like north korea can't have its nuclear weapon?

oh yeah~ because poor north korea never able to own any mass media or entertainment company in american...

sigh... poverty is really a sin.

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Whasssamattta? Your BoyFriend leave you for a Jew?

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Naaaaan naaan, you're really gay because you dont support the Israeli terror weapons, nannn nnaaaaaaa.

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[phoenix42]

so did france, great britain, russia, china, india and pakistan that we can confirm. brazil, south africa, germany, israel, iran and just about any other state with an advanced understanding of the atom could figure out how to do it. north korean nukes are likely. but the notion that they would use them and risk total destruction at the hands of every nuclear nation on earth is insane even for those crazy bastards.

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago, so why other nation like north korea can't have its nuclear weapon? oh yeah~ because poor north korea never able to own any mass media or entertainment company in american...

Want some cheese with your whine?

North Koreau voluntarily signed the NPT treaty, pledging not to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea made a deal (negotiated by Jimmy Carter) with the US, pledging not to develope nuclear weapons. North Korea has violated all these agreements. Having violated these agreements, North Korea can be punished by these same agreements.

Israel (and many other countries) have never signed the NPT, therefore they are not bound by it.

sigh... poverty is really a sin.

No, but stupidity and ignorance is.

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think a country full of people occupying somebody else's land because 'God gave it to them 3000 years ago' is not full of crazy idiots?

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Pehaps Israel is nuts, but I see no evidence that they are about to drop a nuke on the west bank. The only way Israel is going to use a nuke is if they are attacked first.

Re:Israeli has nuclear weapons since long time ago

[phoenix42]

oh, no. the israelis are crazy. so are the palestinians. the subject of israeli nukes is just off topic.

Now they can solve one problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now they can solve their problem of overpopulation in a very simple and "striking" way!!

Obviously

[eclectro]

They have to say this as they are unable to get Viagra in their country.

ignore them

[ActionAL]

who cares, if they decide to do something bad then they'll get smashed to smithereens, but probability wise i bet they just have them to threaten and scare big people like the u.s. who likes to lurch over them and poke them in the buttocks.

seriously folks, don't do anything to provoke them and they flap around like fish until they lose their will to annoy people.

Hardly surprising

[Z00L00K]

Considering that the know-how about nuclear weapons is available to at least some extent in scientific literature. The major problem creating nuclear weapons is to get hands on the components needed, and even that is more a question of money and patience.

Another problem when it comes to making nuclear weapons is not making them, it is making them efficient. An inefficient bomb going of will actually create more radioactive fallout than an efficient bomb, which means that the long-term effects will be worse.

More can be mentioned in this, but I refrain from going further to avoid giving terrorists too much ideas.

So?

[smooth wombat]

So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing.

Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together. In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.

On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return.

The same with Iran.

To those who say that countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes is a bad thing because they could sell/give the info to terrorists, think again. In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.

On another point, take a look at India and Pakistan. They've had seven major wars since the two countries gained independence from Great Britain. However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.

I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.

Re:So?

[Phanatic1a]

This is nonsense.

Why does it force anyone to not be stupid? Surely you're not talking about MAD, which is not only a grotesque oversimplification of the nuclear strategy pursued during the cold war, but also becomes exponentially less stable a game with each new player at the table.

Let's say a nuclear bomb explodes in Haifa or Tel Aviv tomorrow.

Who do you retaliate against? With only two nuclear powers, it's a relatively easy choice to decide who was responsible.

What about with three? Four? Seven? Some of whom are demonstrably unstable and hostile states?

The concern isn't that North Korea will do something "stupid" with their bombs in an obvious and overt fashion. The concern is that North Korea will do something with their bombs by proxy, or in an attempt to implicate a third party.

It forces all sides to not be stupid.

You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim. Why do you think nukes which can spread that same level of suffering outside his own borders will?

Re:So?

[dr. loser]

Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together.

Right. Like Pakistan. Because they've been so responsible at handling their nuclear material. Why should we worry, since Kim Jong Il is so stable?

As the destructive power available to individuals grows through technological advancement, it's an open question whether civilization is long-term stable. A few thousand years ago, one person could, at most, kill tens of others before being killed themselves. Civilization (such as it was) was stable. Now imagine giving everyone on earth a button that would wipe out all life on the planet. How long do you think we'd last? We're somewhere between these two extremes right now. Do you really think demonstrably insane people having nuclear weapons is a good thing?

Re:So?

[Muad'Dave]

Because people with nukes don't do stupid things...

Have you forgotten the little Indian/Pakistani pissing match involving nukes? I'd hardly consider that responsible; it sounds more like stupid to me. They may not have been used against one another, but we sure as hell didn't need that sort of "mine's bigger than yours" posturing with live nukes around. For that matter, I'm sure the world could've done without the nuclear fallout from those tests as well.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing the smaller conventional arms dominos with huge nuclear dominoes isn't such a great idea. Although big dominoes are harder to push over, once they start toppeling they're MUCH harder to stop.

Re:So?

[dgrgich]

While on the surface, I'd like to agree with the parent, I think that the assertion that having nukes forces all sides to not be stupid is a bit of a stretch. It dismisses the notion that someone without the responsibility shown by India and Pakistan would indeed be stupid and get hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, killed by deciding to lob a weapon over the fence at any given moment.

My readings have discovered that old KJ Il has blown past desperation and nearly into crazy town with respect to what he'll do at any given moment. I think that he is fully capable of being stupid.

Re:So?

[df200]

I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.

In principle you are right. Let's just hope that Dr. Strangelove doesn't turn into reality.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.

Slashbotism at its finest. You'd rather a totalitarian nation that starves, oppresses and tortures its own people get nuclear weapons so they can continue their reign of terror while the rest of world stands parallelized.

Some stupidity there.

Re:So?

[GoofyBoy]

>Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

How can you say when USSR and USA had nukes pointed at each other able to destroy each other multiple times over within 20 minutes was not stupid?

The best that you can say is that countries with nukes haven't done any thing stupid, YET.

>In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.

Yes, and thats what causes an arm race. You hit me, I'll hit you harder. How is this a good thing?

>However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.

The last major war was in 1971. Its only recently that nukes got involved.

>I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.

Having nukes does not suddenly embude the political leaders with intellence bonus, this is not the game Civilization. Now their mistakes are that much larger. How is this not stupid?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sniff.

Your concern for the poor people in other countries is touching.

Sniff.

Let's just pray they get the same chance to be murdered in the tens to hundreds of thousands like those lucky Iraqis have been.

Re:So?

[Mant]

Because people with nukes don't do stupid things

You hope people with nukes don't do stupid things, beucase the consequence can be far worse.

The more countries with nukes, and the more extremist those who rule them, the greater the risk somebody will do something stupid.

Re:So?

[fnj]

people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)

I'd like to believe that, truly, but seeing that your statement contains its own annoying little disclaimer, I'm just not buying it.

I think it's more like, "Up til now, despicable tyrants haven't had nuclear weapons, so the planet has been lucky."

OK, some of the USSR regimes were close, but they didn't have that added fillip of gross mouth-foaming insanity at the top. Even Pakistan doesn't compare.

Re:So?

[BrainP1L07]

Parent too can become President of the United States!

Re:So?

[WarpedMind]

But remember the real problem with Iraq supposedly having WMD was not Iraq using them. Everyone knew that Saddam was not crazy enough to get himself nuked.

The real threat is N. Korea selling any nukes to the highest bidder, namely terrorist organizations or other countries with REAL terrorist connections, unlike Iraq.

It was just revealed earlier this week that Libya was getting nuclear material from N. Korea. If Libya can get it, why not Syria? Or better yet, Iran has a whopping bunch of money and they are interested in finishing their bomb program quickly. They might even be quicker if Team America takes out their current nuclear labs.

But lets all go back to those headlines about Prince Charles engagement.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. you're fucking stupid! go back to your 10th grade social studies class.

Re:So?

[Peyna]

while the rest of world stands parallelized.

I'm pretty sure the whole world stands parallelized, with perhaps the exception of "Cirque du Soleil."

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ok. Didn't Russia lose the Cold War and either sold their nukes or lost some of them? Is that not stupid?

BTW, if you're implying that the nuking of Japan was stupid, you really need to get off that anti-American bandwagon, it's killing your perception.

Re:So?

[deadweight]

You are ignoring the fact that North Korea is ruled by an INSANE EVIL DICTATOR (I know this has to be true - I saw Team America). Kim Jong Il may one day decide he doesn't give a shit if he gets nuked along with his entire country. Iran contains elements that would LOVE to see a nuke go off in the USA if they could get away with it. Would would the USA do if a smuggled nuke went off? Blow up both countries and maybe Pakistan too just to make sure we got the guilty party?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuking Japan was a bad decision. It was also a correct one. There were no good options in that situation.

Re:So?

[lsmeg]

Replacing the smaller conventional arms dominos with huge nuclear dominoes isn't such a great idea. Although big dominoes are harder to push over, once they start toppeling they're MUCH harder to stop.

Best analogy ever...

Re:So?

[Citizen of Earth]

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

I think it's exactly the opposite. Countries with nukes can do even more stupid things because they believe they can't be invaded. Once Iran gets The Bomb, you can expect them to be much more aggressive in influencing/invading other countries and exporting theocratic terrorism.

North Korea was already in a position where it cannot be invaded, since an invasion would result in millions or tens of millions of dead civilians. Of course, Jong Ill is not entirely rational.

Re:So?

[Pionar]

You say this as if you've forgotten that Iran has said that the first thing they'll do when they get nukes is fire them at Israel.

letting insane people have weapons is not good.

On the other hand, what the fuck is up with the Bush Administration? Telling all these countries that they can't have nukes while funding programs to develop more of our own? Maybe not to us, but that looks like hypocrisy to the rest of the world.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now imagine giving everyone on earth a button that would wipe out all life on the planet. How long do you think we'd last?

Well, if the time leading up the US 2004 elections was any indication, we'd all have been turned into cinder heaps already.

Re:So?

[baalz]

The falicy in your assertion is that everyone always behaves in their own best interests. How many crazy people does it take to start a nuclear war? Also keep in mind that crazy from a Western point of view could also be seen as "having radically different cultural values". There are plenty of people who would gladly risk (or even deliberately cause) worldwide extermination because they know they're doing the will of God and have 77 vigins waiting for them in heaven. Overestimating your enemy can be as bad as underestimating them, and depending on people's "common sense" is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette. Eventually you're gonna get shot.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The last major war was in 1971. Its only recently that nukes got involved."

India tested their first nuke in 74, Pakistan's nuclear program was in full swing by the late 70's.. iirc, the tested one in 83 but the first public acknowledgement came much later in the nineties.

Fact is, both countries have had nukes for a few decades now.

Re:So?

[onash]

eh? But what if the side that gets the bomb is stupid, or irresponsible? Saying that countries ruled by dictators should have nuclear bombs is like saying that if you give a baby a knife, it will begin to act responsibly and won't cut itself.

I know there are theories in political science that two democratic nations won't go to a war with each other.. and give every country the Bomb and they will act responsibly, but I'm not willing to bet my life on those theories.

Re:So?

[SunFan]

...is this proof that Libertarians are correct about gun laws?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously this isn't true despite what the whoever it was who told it to you would have you believe. Fucking idiot.

Re:So?

[jalefkowit]

So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing...

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things.

Yet.

Re:So?

[Kaydet81]

Interesting argument. I'm all for Bush, but Bush being from Texas should know that the best way to keep the peace is to arm everyone...

Re:So?

[tomcode]

Because people with nukes don't do stupid things

Fine print: Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Re:So?

[NitsujTPU]

Why?

I guess that the reason that North Korea wouldn't sell nukes is because of the amount of evidence left over after one goes off? Shit, they sell everything else to terrorists.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)."

Well, for one thing, intelligence does not equate with morality nor insanity. Tell that to the college-educated suicide bomber, who does not care about his own destruction, but rather some "cause". You make the wrong assumption that no leaders are insane or intrinsically evil. You also make the wrong assumption that the weapons will always exist in the right hands, that no governments will fall, etc.

The problem for me is not, generally who has the nukes, but that more and more countries are gaining them. It's all about the ease of ONE person pressing a button and taking MILLIONS of lives. It's the double-edged sword of technology, the empowerment that technological advances bring can be used for massively good and massively bad purposes. Everyone having nukes does not a safe world make. You may care whether you live or die, the guy down the block may not.

Re:So?

[zanderredux]

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

Would you care to explain how the ability to produce nuclear weapons correlate to a lower ability to do "stupid things"?

What is the relationship? Where's the link?

Re:So?

[Gauchito]

So now that Kim Jong-Il feels protected, what will he do? What will he do with the army he spent 60% of the GDP of the country building? I mean, it's not exactly like that country has been just sitting around, doing nothing since the Korean War. It's been conducting raids in South Korea, there have been numerous territorial water violations (with shots fired and people dying), it's been abducting Japanese civilians to train spies, it's been selling nuclear know-how to other countries (Pakistan, for example), etc. Now that North Korea feels a lot more resilient to an attack, might it not also feel that the US would be much more reluctant to enter into a Korean conflict with the threat of nukes being fired?

I mean, in the North, it's one man's decision - Kim's. What is he thinking? Does he think the US will not risk that kind of war, especially when it's tied up in Iraq? Or do Kim's old survival instincts still tell him that a war is a sure way to lose power, and these nukes are just part of a larger way of getting aid flowing back into the country (with seems unlikely in the next four Bush years)? Either way, this isn't good news. The first option starts a war that will bring much death and broken bodies, the latter will prolong a regime that sends out movies to its citizens teaching them how to eat grass due to a shortage of food.

As an aside, I'm waiting anxiously to see what is reported on North Korea's official news agency tomorrow (they're always a day behind). Most of the news items on this website are ridiculous (i.e., president of Congo celebrates Kim's birthday, Kim gets fruit basket from Palenstinians, Japan declared wicked trickster, etc.), but I wonder if they will mention this announcement.

Re:So?

[Chimp_On_Stilts]

I respect your logic in your statement, but you need to look back at the Cold War to see why a scenario where everyone has "the bomb" is a terrible, terrible thing.

Would you ever tell me that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a result of the reasoned thinking posession of nuclear arms brings? Dear god, no. Because two countries with nukes were at odds, we came hellishly close to obliterating eachother.

I want to leave off with this thought:

M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction

Re:So?

[Jagasian]

Can you provide a link to a reputable source for your claim that Iran has officially stated that they will nuke Israel, once they get nukes?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

" So what if North Korea has nukes? That's a good thing.

Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)."

I'll be glad when they start selling their nukes on the black market to feed themselves. Then everyone will have nukes and we'll all be less stupid, by your arguement. I think you need some nukes to improve your reasoning skills.

Re:So?

[Pionar]

Sure, give me a little while.

Re:So?

[FattyBoeBatty]

You are a moron -- nukes are not an IQ pill. The inventor of dynamite had the exact same thought: "With this tremendous explosive, countries will no longer wage warfare because of the devistating consequences". Boy was he wrong.

Bigger guns in the hands of lunatics just results in lunatics that cause even more damage.

Re:So?

[Pionar]

Ok, here's this from a UPI story by Modher Amin from Aug. 19, 2004 (sorry, don't have a link. Found it on LexisNexis):

"The entire Zionist territory, including its nuclear establishments and atomic munitions are now within the range of Iran's advanced missiles," he said, quoted by the Iranian press.

"He" would be Revolutionary Guards chief Yadollah Javani

Then we know that Ayatollah Khomeini, who the current mullahs inherited their power from, has called us the "Great Satan" and called for the destruction of Israel and the US.

But, no, although I distinctly remember hearing a senator say that Iran had said that they would be looking to destroy Israel with nukes, I can't find a quote. So, I retract that. But it's still not a good place.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think the mass starvation of your own citizenry would force a national leader to not be stupid, but that hasn't stopped Kim

letting brainwashed people starve to death can be a good thing for states like DPRK :

1) your people are weak. The military (1/3 of the population!) and officials of the regime, who get's all the food, can repress them more easily.

2) can easily blam anybody for bad conditionning, like the USA, and fuel propaganda.

Re:So?

[lewi]

"It forces all sides to not be stupid."

Hah!

Just like the Soviet Union when they were putting nuclear missiles in Cuba and almost started a nuclear was with us? We were just as insane as they were and ready to push the button.

Just like the US when our defense computers had a glitch in the early 80's and almost triggered a nuclear strike?

Just like the Soviet Union crumbling and suddenly loosing hundreds of radioactive materials? When that happened, our government was concerned that some nut would get the bomb. Musharaf got it.

What happens when the "moderate" Musharaf is overthrown one day and replaced by a more populist Islamic fundamentalist? Will Pakistan still not be stupid? Or, will they just sell nuclear technology to every fundamentaliist Islamic terrorist?

Historically, every military technology eventually proliferates no matter how much effort is put into keeping it a secret. It's only a matter of time before someone uses a nuclear weapon again.

It's not a matter of stupidity - it's a matter of insanity. An insane person (car bomber, evil dictator, etc...) would likely use the bomb. Just how insane is Kimbo really?

Re:So?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Remember the phrase "the war to end all wars"? We all know how that worked out. I don't think it's safe to trust that same strategy with nuclear weapons.

Re:So?

[Jagasian]

Yes, but this is exactly how crap started with Iraq. A little false bit of info here and there, snowballs into a huge lie. Iran, like many other nations, talk trash, but whether or not they actually do anything to back it up is another thing.

Furthermore, we do the same trash talking as everybody else, with "Axis of Evil" and other name calling, as well as calling for the destruction of various governments. It just seems like the same old propaganda to me. Demonize the other nation, make up a bunch of lies about them, call them names, etc... then invade.

The biggest problem would be Israel trying to bomb, unprovoked, various parts of Iran. Then the Iranians would feel justified in retaliating with a direct attack on Israel.

Re:So?

[Pionar]

And I think they would be. We shouldn't rely on Israel for our intelligence on Iran. They've got their own agenda to promote.

Re:So?

[Guppy06]

"Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)."

Just like people with guns don't do stupid things? Weapons are no substitute for brain cells. Examples of nuclear states during the Cold War are statistical anomallies.

"On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return."

1. Everybody knows what can be expected. The real question is "Do they care?" In its own, funny, roundabout way, to a certain extent, the Soviet Union did actually care a little about the Soviet people, and ultimately that's why we're here today having this conversation instead of extinct (it's also why there's no longer a Soviet Union: they chose to fold instead of cracking down on their own people). But is there any reason to believe, any glimmering of hope, that Kim Jong Il actually gives a damn about anybody other than himself?
2. We're talking about DPRK here, quite possibly the only country on the face of the planet where you could drop a nuclear bomb and nobody would notice. Pyongyang has already turned the entire country into a wasteland and, if anything, a 20 megaton explosion would be an improvement. And I only wish I was being sarcastic.

"In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.

Those ruling mullahs in Iran have been known to quietly give aid to the Israelis when it suited their interests. How do you think Israel knew about Iraq's nuclear power plant? Again: weapons are no substitute for brain cells.

"both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another."

Have you looked at Kashmir recently?

Also, are you sure it's because of the nuclear weapons, or because nowadays each one would have to be in a two-front war? India has to worry about China and Pakistan has to worry about Muslim extremists in their own borders.

They laugh

[Bilzmoude]

They are pretty much saying "Ha Ha! You fools went after the wrong country! We have the weapons of mass destruction. Just try and catch us now! Mu ha ha ha ha!"

Not surprised

[Dracolytch]

Huh... Imagine that. Go around beating the crap out of smaller countries because you can, and sooner or later they'll ~really~ start posessing the means of defending themselves.

Our government has acted like a bully for a long time, especially recently. We can only push so many people around before they start pushing back.

You get what you give.
~D

Hey North Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't hug with nuclear arms!

What else they can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's pretend you are a mid-east country. You say you don't mass destruction weapons. They send watchers who find nothing. Eventually when is clear they have no MDW and cannot harm us, you invade the country.

Maybe the solution is playing pretend: "OF COURSE I HAVE THEM AND I'M READY TO USE THEM ON YOU"

Jataimi in Iran is doing the same. What pretends C.Rice saying "we are not invading Iran ... yet" is she creating a menace? is she forcing the "axes of evil" to arm themselves "for protection"?

sad sad world.

Re:What else they can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

What pretends C.Rice saying "we are not invading Iran ... yet" is she creating a menace?

Yeah, if I was running Iran, I'd be concentrating completely on making nuclear weapons and WMD right now. And I am sure that they are - you never admit to making them obviously, only to having them when you finally do! Chemical WMD to attack troops that invade, nuclear weapons to destroy cities in nearby countries that are allied with the west. Possibly Saudi Arabia, dunno if they'd reach Japan but they might.

The USA had it easy in Iraq because, well, you invaded a country that didn't have WMD or nuclear weapons, so troop losses have been minimal. All that has done is convince a lot of other countries that capitulating to "don't make WMD or nuclear weapons" demands is a recipe for getting invaded. So future invasions will most likely end up with tens of thousands of *invading* troops killed - losses I don't think the American public could accept.

Next up:

[Anonymous Coward]

The Korean war... number two. Nope, I'm not trolling. Think about it.

Invitation?

[Living WTF]

North Korea has a weird way to say that the want to "have a visit" from the US.

You don't have to believe everything

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the various western propaganda attempts that has been floating around, trying to discredit North Korea. No one in the DPRK's government have ever said anything like that.

Pure propaganda.

Are you eating it up like good little slaves? I hope not!

Check out for real news from DPRK:
http://kcna.co.jp/

As usual for politics

[Anonymous Coward]

90% snide 'America sucks' remarks and 10% meaningful observations.

Why does Slashdot bother? Trendy political news is NOT geek material, and I resent my own Geekhood being hijacked by ex-student council members and flashy civics twerps who happen to play video games or own a computer.

Re:As usual for politics

[Anonymous Coward]

"ex-"?

don't worry

[e**(i pi)-1]

We don't worry about the N. Korea nukes: CNN has
this morning already moved to a more relevant story:
"Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles".

Re:don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, I share your disgust - I made the mistke of going to cnn.com to find out more information after first reading the headline.

It could be the end of the world, nukes flying everywhere, armies mobilized for utter destruction - and I bet you that CNN will still lead with a story on Bennifer.

Re:don't worry

[jaakkeli]

OK, IMHO that post was worth +5 funny. But for the love of all that's holy, would someone please explain to me why the parent was modded interesting?

By several moderators?!?

My head hurts.

Re:don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you were trying for zero as your nickname. Shouldn't that be e**(i pi) + 1 instead of -1 since [e^(i*pi)) = -1]? :)

Re:don't worry

[ozbird]

That's great news - republic, anyone?

Re:don't worry

[Sloppy]

I remember the same thing happening 11 years ago. A cow-orker was reading a newspaper, and I glanced at it. It said North Korea wasn't letting in nuclear inspectors. My cow-orker said, "Wow, can you believe it?" I agreed that it was pretty scary. He went on, "I can't believe it. They think O.J. killed his wife." Oh, that story!

Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Engineer-Poet]

You don't believe that North Korea was all sweetness and light until Washington got belligerent, do you?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's his point. Washington has been war-mongering for decades. North Korea has been stockpiling in step.
duuhhhh...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[rokzy]

not to mention the US actually failed to live up to the previous agreement:

Korea - we want to develop nuclear power
USA - we'll help you with technology for nuclear power so you don't need to develop it yourself ...many years later...

Korea - er, hello. where's our help?
USA - fuck you
Korea - fuck you too then

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[deanj]

Korea continued it's nuclear weapons program during that whole time. There were no checks on what they were doing and by the time anyone realized what was really going on, they were well on their way. NK started freaking out once someone called 'em on it.

This isn't some instantaneous thing that happened. If creating nuclear weapons were that easy for them, it would have happened a long time ago.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm we built a plant for them and they used it to enrich material...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[BJZQ8]

Exactly. At the time, the Clinton Administration waved the "Peace in Our Time" treaty like a bunch of Neville Chamberlains...Now what do we get? Instead of a war on our terms, against a non-nuclear enemy, we'll get a war on their terms, against a nuclear-and-willing-to-use-it enemy. To quote from the Wiki on Chamberlain... "The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive." We all know that worked great with Hitler, and it worked so wonderful with NK too. So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Wandering Wombat]

The best part is, I'm pretty sure you really meant all that.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[MetaPhyzx]

not to mention the US actually failed to live up to the previous agreement:
Korea - we want to develop nuclear power
USA - we'll help you with technology for nuclear power so you don't need to develop it yourself ...many years later...
Korea - er, hello. where's our help?
USA - fuck you
Korea - fuck you too then

Not quite. Clinton and the IAEA negotiated to place cameras in the reactor. To behonest, it was a fair arrangement. The imminent change in policy after George Bush took office, and his lack of PERSONAL policy detail (being in front of dealing with other nations as a personal engagement; palm pressing; making them feel they were a part of the process) immediately made the already paranoid NK government renege.

Thier feeling was now they were no longer dealing with an American administration that believed in exhausting diplomacy and would allow the NK's to save face (by exchanging the ability to give up weapons for aid and a security guarantee), but one that if pushed, strike.

NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave; from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world. I remember seeing a documentary recently where the power went out in a family's home and then blinked back on, only to hear "Damned Americans", like we had something to do with it.

The regime maintains power through fear and the projection of military strength while the basic necessites for citizens are ignored. Without external aid, this might be the one legitimate regime that may decide "you know, fuck it. Let's take someone else with us."

So they felt that by holding the region "hostage" by becoming a nuclear power, they can: One, guarantee thier own hold on power as the US and UN would dare not invade lest Seoul or Tokyo get turned into one big sheet of glass and two, demand food and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.

To us, now we're damned if we do aid them, because we're caving in and damned if we don't, because I've got a feeling the Asian nuclear proliferation problem may get a lot worse. Japan has made minor rumblings about getting a deterrent, and they can have a bomb at any time within six months of starting a program.

Clinton mulled a cruise and air missle strike to take away NK's ability to make weapons, and opted for the placement of cameras in the hope that a diplomatic response coupled with aid would work. Plus, he knew hitting NK could result in seoul being behind enemy lines in 48 hours in the event of a war.

Bush has fanned flames, and then with tunnel vision
zeroed in on Iraq since his election, while NK might, just might, pose the biggest threat to democracy and stability in a number of the worlds critical economies: China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, India, Australia to name the big ones. Ignoring this, and possibly fighting the wrong war could seriously come back to haunt us.

Coupled with the perception in the world that to get any respect from Washington you have to have weapons, what can we expect? Which is why Iran isn't CLOSE to thinking about giving up thiers, knowing they're that close.

What's that old adage about catching more flies?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Kosi]

If creating nuclear weapons were that easy

It is easy!

You just need a critical mass of U238, conventional explosives and a neutron source. Split the U238 in two parts, assemble it in a way that they'll be pushed together again by the conv. explosion, which is also the right point in time to start pumping neutrons in the U238. Voila!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

Just curious..why do you think anyone would want to agree on 'war by the enemies terms'? What would that by the country?

So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?

Maybe they wouldn't be so scared if we didn't invade Afganistan. Then Iraq. Iran looks next. Hmm... don't you think they have a right to worry about being invaded?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[MetaPhyzx]

Er, no. maybe we should have saved our chips for them in the FIRST PLACE. NK versus us? well, that's a war I could get behind. least I'd know it was for the right reasons.

Once we reneged they had NOTHING to lose, and no way to save face.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Doc Ruby]

No, they were actually on a live camera, not producing weapons. When Bush came in, they took down the camera, and move forwards to weapons production. That was the time for Bush to threaten to bomb them, but instead he waited until some Saudis based in Afghanistan bombed us, then bombed Afghanistan (good idea), and invaded Iraq instead of dealing with N Korea. The process has been long towards a N Korean bomb, but the it is Bush who blew the peace, and a legitimate war - in favor of an illegitimate one.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[aled]

The first bomb was made in 1945, how dificult should be now? provided that you have the radioactive materials of course.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[CrimsonAvenger]

You just need a critical mass of U238, conventional explosives and a neutron source

U-238??? I think not. Might want some U-235, or Plutonium, perhaps. MIght even be able to do it with Thorium. But not U-238.

Also, the neutron source is optional. When you add a neutron source, you're allowing for a smaller critical mass of fissionables.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Phillup]

Bill Clinton did not promote the "legitimacy" of the pre-emptive strike.

If they strike, it will be because they percieve a "legitimate" reason. And are acting "legitimately" according to current doctrine espoused by this country.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Smidge204]

You just need a critical mass of U238, conventional explosives and a neutron source. Split the U238 in two parts, assemble it in a way that they'll be pushed together again by the conv. explosion, which is also the right point in time to start pumping neutrons in the U238. Voila!

That would be the hard part, you see. There's are requirements in engineering know-how, manufacturing ability and equipment required to make that happen exactly when you want it to. It's all very good in theory but it'll never work in practice.
=Smidge=

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you have suitable materials, building a simple gun type bomb is dead easy.

Getting suitable material is the hard part.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[TheDefenistrator]

You mean "The Playboy" and Madeleine Halfbright?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's all very good in theory but it'll never work in practice.

It seemed to work at least twice...

(The Nagasaki bomb was a different design)

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[RWerp]

The USA has no option of going to war. As soon as the USA would attack North Korea, Seul would be turned to rubble. South Koreans are effectively hostages.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Jay Bratcher]

U-235, U-238 - whatever it takes...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[carpe_noctem]

Mr. Kosi,
This post has been reported to the department of homeland security, and we will be sending agents to your house for further questioning. Please wait at your home for our agents between the hours of 10am-4pm, or call our terrorist-confessional-hotline at to reschedule your appointment.

Love,
The DHS

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Catbeller]

Are you nuts? You actually think North Korea is going to declare war on us and commit suicide???

Too much Fox News rots the brain.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[RailGunner]

So.. it wasn't a pre-emptive strike to fire cruise missles at the aspirin factory in Sudan?

Either that was pre-emptive, or you're going to have to admit it was to get Monica Lewinsky off the front page.

If they strike, it will be because they percieve a "legitimate" reason.

Or possibly just because Kim Jong Il is insane.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[sadler121]

So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?

That was retorical of course, because with Duybia in office, of course we are going to invade N. Korea, even if invading N. Korea means that they (N. Korea) launch Nuclear bombs at us.

N. Korea needs a seirious clue if they think they can intimidate us with just a couple of nukes. How many nukes does the US have? Above and beyond that, how many are THERMONUCLEAR? If N. Korea launched a nuke agiesnt S. Korea or our armed forces, there is NO DOUBT that we would cover the whole damned nation with nukes.

This really changes nothing, and only ensures that Duybia and the neo cons WILL invade N. Korea...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Nasheer]

"It's all very good in theory but it'll never work in practice."

It worked beautifully on Hyrosima and Nagasaki, back in the 40's.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Gonzoman]

Actually you need U235 or plutonium 239. You cannot get a critical mass of U238.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Citizen of Earth]

Korea continued it's nuclear weapons program during that whole time. There were no checks on what they were doing and by the time anyone realized what was really going on, they were well on their way.

Similarly, Iran got caught with its hand in the cookie jar when it was discovered to be illegally enriching uranium in 2002. But don't worry; we can trust them now. They've said that their nucear-weapons program is for peaceful purposes only.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[sadler121]

Critical mass of U238 won't do a DAMNED THING. U235 is 'enriched, weaponized' Urainium, not U238...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Random Chaos]

We've been belligerent against North Korea for a very long time. In fact, we would likely have had war against North Korea under Clinton had Carter not forced his hand with the nuclear disarmament accords.

However you also need to realize that North Korea never did break the agreement that was signed under Clinton. It was Bush who broke it after misinterpreting it. The rules of the agreement said no plutonium enrichment, but made no reference to uranium enrichment. For some reason Bush thought that North Korea doing uranium enrichment violated those accords, so he suspended the US end, thus causing all this mayhem we now see.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Goose3254]

Heck no North Korea isn't going to attack the United States...They'll attack SOUTH Korea and then get our pinko leftists to scream "It's a civil war!!!" to keep us out of it. The tenuous stability of the region will be thrown into chaos. Any agression by us, even defensive posturing, will be denounced by China in order to "justify" them getting involved. Why? China is nearly broke. A good financial "push" and their house of cards falls down. Communism runs counter to nature...when there is no reward for excellence, there is no reason to strive for it. If everyone "gets according to thier need" no one will truly strive to "give according to thier ability."

To answer a post above this one...sure the North Koreans got MOST of thier technology from China and the old USSR, but without the computers Clinton and Albright lifted the ban on, they were severely limited in thier ability to hit the targets. Heck even the Chinese weren't crazy enough to give that pyschopath Kim Jung Il the ability to really accurately use 'nukes.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[blighter]

So in your estimation the Clinton policy was a success because he allowed NK to save face by accepting aid in exchange for placing cameras.

But they continued working on their nuclear weapons program in secret. So basically Clinton was paying for nothing.

I don't think that Bush's policy is all that great either, it's a situation that doesn't have a good solution.

But I definitely don't believe that paying off a madman to pretend not to develop nuclear weapons is a successful policy.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

No I don't think they have a right to worry about being invaded. The US only invades countries that can't fight back. This would be waaaaay to close to actual war for Dubya. If they swore they didn't have em, the US might attack, but the US attack a country that might be able to beat them.... Hahahahahahahaha
Sure... To much FOX news for you man. Iraq is not courage, its bullying. THe US would never try to bully a country with a real army.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[dual_boot_brain]

depends, do they believe their own propaganda? You assume that we are dealing with a rational government (well, technically two rational governments). When a government starves its own citizens and uses the relatives of political dissidents for bio-chem warfare experiments, I have serious doubts about how rational they are.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

"Maybe they wouldn't be so scared if we didn't invade Afganistan. Then Iraq. Iran looks next"

This statement is idiotic. North Korea had nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now they're afraid because... they developed nukes.

If they had no nukes, they would be anothee insignificant SE Asian country, with nothing to fear from the US.

Of course, N Korea is ALSO a brutal dictatorship with no respect for human rights.

And before all you US haters try to slam the US, ask yourself what american transgressions have to do with this. Drawing parallels is a cheap way to deflect the discussion away from the point, so don't bother.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

> Plus, he knew hitting NK could result in seoul being behind enemy lines in 48 hours in the event of a war.

That's by no means certain. The DPRK army has effectively no air support, the roads would be bombed out rather quickly, meaning they'd have to cross through extremely dense minefields. Then deal with massive fuel shortages.

What they have is something more like like tens of thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul, all armed with incendiary shells. They don't even need the nukes to deal with Seoul. Those are for us.

Frankly I don't think Bush exacerbated the situation much at all -- his rhetoric was simply returning a small fraction of theirs. What he has done is get us so bogged down in his private war that we no longer have an effective deterrent elsewhere.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[DrWho520]

I will agree with everything except for "Afganistan", wherever that is. Now Afghanistan I would have a problem with as well. There was a clear goal there; capture Bin Laden and liberate the country from terrorist control. Yes, we failed to capture Bin Laden, but I think real good was done there. And you cannot call alterior motives, because there is no oil there. Come to think of it, invading Iran is a little farfetched as well. The only change that will come in that country is within, and I think the US federal government realizes that. But that is just my two-cents.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[MetaPhyzx]

Er, they couldnt do anything while the cameras were in place.
LIVE cameras. Kinda hard to work in secret when the reactor's being viewed in real time. SO the previous policy was working... coupled with an exchange in reactor technology that would enable power but little risk of enriched nuclear material. So I'd say that approach was working, if not BUYING time as well.
Saving face politically is important, period. Each side has to come back looking like a winner, regardless of whether or not that's what happened. As nuts as Kim is, he still has to answer to the apparatus around him... and those who have bought into the belief.
NK did not pursue enrichment again until mid 2001 once they disconnected the cameras. Last I checked, that wasn't on Clinton's watch.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xfmr_expert]

Someone will be getting a knock on the door from our beloved Deparmtent of Homeland Security...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[badmammajamma]

ROFL...those computers were trivially easy to get by any country that wanted them. The only thing the ban did for computers was to make it so that the population en masse wouldn't be able to get them. Controls on computer gear have been the biggest joke in trade controls. They are simply impossible to enforce.

Clinton lifting the ban on them just sent a message that we were willing to work with them to resolve the problem. It was a way for us to show that we were playing the game without actually giving them anything they couldn't easily get on their own.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

I wouldn't say this was a transgression but well, we did sort of have a police action there a few years ago, and then we built a few bases along an area called the DMZ. (Nice place for a picinic if you get a chance.) Then we put all these men who wear a lot of green on the bases and told them not to let any North Koreans cross into South Korea. If there is a war we call these men speed bumps, or non-electric-pop-up-targets (Infantry) because the North Koreans will roll over them.
But.
Lets remember why the root cause of any of this.
North Korea has no food, no industry, and no money. South Korea has all of that.

As for Human Rights violations, have you read a paper lately? By that standard we will be invading ourselves next week.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[pitdingo]

Police action? Perhaps you are refering to the USA defending South Korea when North Korea invaded it? A thing called the Korean War? The hostilites have never ceased since then; only a truce has been signed which is not a peace agreement. Technically, a state of war still exists. We have had bases along the DMZ since the end of that war...which was what...in the late 50's?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

Uhm, Clinton and Albright didn't hand over the computers. N.Korea got them the same way everyone else did. Find a country that wasn't sanctioned and order them throught them. Same way Haliburton did business with Iran and Iraq. For crying out loud, it gets old folks. Also, China isn't nearly broke. They have money, and their economy is doing fairly well. Sure parts of China look like a medievil wood cut, but drive through South Western PA. Right now the US is broke, 8 Trillion in debt really. Also if N.Korea does attack we are going to war, the simple reason is that the US military bases that line the DMZ have about 1 missle per square foot aimed at them. The little boys in green have a life expectancy of about ~2 min once the cards fall. The real issue isn't us Dems, you kill Americans, you burn, give me back my rifle I'm heading to the recruiter. The issue is that the US military is over extended, we have no one to send. The theory with the bases was only to provide a speed bump, slow em down enough to deploy the cat 1 units like the 10th Mountain (their NG augmenties just got back in NY), 82 Airborne (IRAQ), and a few ranger bats from GA. Once on the ground they could hold the line until the rest could be deployed. Whooops. Stop trying to blame Clinton for everything, Bush hasn't done any better, he's just made it worse.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[blighter]

My understanding, and this all took place a while ago and I don't follow it all that closely, was that in mid-2001 we learned that they had been pursuing their nuclear ambitions in a separate facility from pretty much the time the Clinton accords were signed.

I've never heard of the foolproof camera system that was keeping them totally and incontrovertibly away from nuclear research, but again I don't follow all this that closely.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[I8TheWorm]

It's so much easier to point a finger and pass the blame. This is a bit offtiopic, but does North Korea actually wonder why South Korea has all the creature comforts, while North Korea doesn't?

A small part of the reason may be that South Korea is a bit more temperate, but the reality is North Korea has suffered decades of mismanagement. Is the correct solution to the problem a) take over another sovereign nation and exploit their resources, or b) realize the err of your ways and begin an economic overhaul (with China as a possible example)?

The reason the US has troops still stationed in Korea is the very same reason there are US troops in Taiwan. The minute we leave, a new war begins... see Viet Nam if you need an example. Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?

Lets remember why the root cause of any of this.

You can't possibly be suggesting that this is South Korea's fault, can you?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

This statement is idiotic. North Korea had nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now they're afraid because... they developed nukes.

If they had no nukes, they would be anothee insignificant SE Asian country, with nothing to fear from the US.

Actually its not...your statement is idiotic. Check you timeline; In Feb of 2002, Bush calls NK part of an 'Axis of Evil.' It isn't until late 2002 / early 2003 that NK restarted their nuclear weapons program (and thier http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12 /12/nkorea.nukes/ nuclear reactors, for that matter.

Of course, N Korea is ALSO a brutal dictatorship with no respect for human rights.

There are lots of those...but we aren't invading or even really paying attention to them are we?

And before all you US haters try to slam the US, ask yourself what american transgressions have to do with this. Drawing parallels is a cheap way to deflect the discussion away from the point, so don't bother.

First, I don't hate the US; I strongly disagree wit Bush's foreign policy. Secondly, what you call 'transgressions' some might call hipocrasy. You know, the pot shouldn't call the kettle black and all that.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[baudbarf]

Wow... Mr. Mom, right? I wonder if I'm the ONLY person here who got that...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Phillup]

You have proposed a false dichotomy, because there were other reasons not having to do with being pre-emptive or ML.

As in, retaliatory.

However, I have absolutely no problem saying it was to get ML off the front page either.

After all, he (Clinton) wasn't my boy. He was simply the best of a few bad choices.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

I will agree with everything except for "Afganistan", wherever that is. Now Afghanistan I would have a problem with as well.

Oh, sorry..forgot an H. Please get over it, pointing out that I made a spelling mistake adds nothing to the conversation.

Now Afghanistan I would have a problem with as well. There was a clear goal there; capture Bin Laden and liberate the country from terrorist control. Yes, we failed to capture Bin Laden, but I think real good was done there. And you cannot call alterior motives, because there is no oil there.

For the conspiricy nuts...IIRC, Afghanistan was a leading producer of opium. Remember, we also have a war on drugs going on. Not that I believe that was the reason, just throwing out another possible alterior motive.

Yes, we failed to capture bin laden. Please explain why he matters (or, more to the point, why you believe his capture will suddenly mean the end of his terrorist group).

Come to think of it, invading Iran is a little farfetched as well. The only change that will come in that country is within, and I think the US federal government realizes that. But that is just my two-cents.

The reason I don't think its so far fetched is because we are starting to have the same pot banging we did to drum up support for invading Iraq. Replace Nuclear weapons with WMD..and so far we're starting out much the same. They have NW (they are staying away from 'WMD' because of the blunder in Iraq, and don't want to remind people of it), lets get the UN involved, we have no plans to attack... Only time will tell if we go down the same path (should the UN again not do what Bush wants).

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

I know why we have troops in Korea, it was once explained to me in great detail. Now how do you get the idea that I think South Korea is at fault? No, I am saying that the South has all of this and North Korea wants it. Normally I would take option B, or maybe C which should be dramaticly alter the type of government and sell off all major industry to multinational corporations then retire to tropical island. But Mr. Kim Jong... is a bit of a nut job and might think option A. Take over soviergn nation thus creating a unified Korea under his rule, while at the same time depriving the West of all Samsung, irivier, hyundai, daewoo, and hynix products is a good idea. And South Vietnam may be better off these days then it was under before. But I'm not sure, Dictatoral Communism vs. Totalitarian Dictatorship. Hard call. But at least we aren't proping up either. And before you say it, I'm not saying that we are proping up South Korea, they seem to be doing just fine on their own.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[baudbarf]

No doubt, after the U.S. invades Iran, they will discover a huge cache of illegal weapons to justify the invasion, just like the huge cache of illegal weapons they found in Iraq.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

The war ended in the 53 I think, might have been 54. It was fairly short. I had a quasi-family member in it. Yes, technically a state of war still exists, but we never really went to war. It was a police action by name, and really only by name. And it didn't solve anything.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So they felt that by holding the region "hostage" by becoming a nuclear power, they can: One, guarantee thier own hold on power as the US and UN would dare not invade lest Seoul or Tokyo get turned into one big sheet of glass and two, demand food and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.

For the most part, I agree with your analysis. The above, however, I think may be slightly erroneous. Having Nukes does not protect N. Korea from the U.S. China does that all by itself. The U.S. will not march into a country that close to China (again), with close government ties to China. We would get our butts kicked. Having nukes prevents China from marching into N. Korea, which is something the Koreans are probably just as worried about. Aside from that, nukes are a bargaining chip in negotiating aid from both China and the U.S., neither of which want a nuke going off.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

"North Korea had nothing to fear until they developed nukes."
Actually, that statement is idiotic. If you'll recall, Bush called them part of the "Axis of Evil" some time ago.
I do agree, however, that NK is a brutal dictatorship with little respect for human rights. I'm disappointed that Bush was foolish enough to go after Iraq and do nothing about NK. Oil must be thicker than blood...

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[cprael]

Get your facts straight, please. The NK's have developed plutonium weapons. Thus, plutonium enrichment. Thus, a violation of the agreement (the point of which was to cease nuclear weaponeering in return for energy subsidies).

"All the mayhem we're seeing" is because of failure by the NKs to live up to their side of the agreement. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

However you also need to realize that North Korea never did break the agreement that was signed under Clinton. It was Bush who broke it after misinterpreting it. The rules of the agreement said no plutonium enrichment, but made no reference to uranium enrichment.

Yes, the Agreed Framework doesn't say anything about uranium enrichment. But it doesn't say anything about plutonium either!

Then there's the question of whether enrichment of uranium constitutes a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea did not leave the NPT until well after the enrichment program had allegedly begun.

Oh, and by the way, I'm pretty sure people don't usually enrich plutonium for weapons purposes. Isotopic separation is expensive, so it's much easier to design your reactor to produce plutonium in desirable isotopic ratios. But this is just a technical point.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[pitdingo]

Well, it did keep the North from annexing the South, right?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Coryoth]

This statement is idiotic. North Korea had nothing to fear until they developed nukes. ...
Of course, N Korea is ALSO a brutal dictatorship with no respect for human rights.

So presuming for a minute that the US war in Iraq was solely to promote freedom around the world by removing a brutal dictator with no respect for human rights, and remembering Bush's recent promise to promote freedom throughout the world... Don't you think Korea does have reason to fear, independent of the Nuclear weapons? The country is run by an unpredictable dictator with no interest in human rights or democracy. According to Bush's recent speeches such countires are target number one for this administration, and they've already shown a willingness to use military means to achieve these ends.

Yes North Korea was developing nuclear weapons before Bush was making such speeches, but from their point of view they could simply say they had particularly good foresight.

Jedidiah.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

Yes, but the entire thing just ended up right back where it started with thousands dead and tens of thousands homeless.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[brighton]

You just made a big mistake! Expect a visit from the Homeland Security!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all optimistic bs. NK wanted a nuclear weapon in the 90s and they still want it. Whether we give them aid as we did in the 90s or cut off aid is irrelevant.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[node 3]

If they had no nukes, they would be anothee insignificant SE Asian country, with nothing to fear from the US.

Just like Iraq?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?

Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off these days, with the highest rate of birth defects in the world thanks to residual Agent Orange and other US-supplied poisons still contaminating its soil?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ProfessionalCookie]

Do you honestly think that the N. Korean Gov't feels that way or do you see the possibility that Iraq is an excuse to continue doing what they were doing before the Iraq war.

Not saying anything about whether Iraq was done right or wrong. Honestly here people. Let's not be lemmings.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[pitdingo]

So the original problem is the North is lead by a totally ruthless, corrupt and incompetant regime who lets its people starve and be homeless while its leaders live a life of luxury and spends tons of money on the military?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

Damn, that sounds familiar.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[cdrguru]

Maybe North Korea has had 50+ years of indoctrination about how the US is the root of all evil in the world. Maybe they are just itching for a fight because they want unification (on the North's terms) with the South - basically just a takeover. Maybe if we stand back and let them have whatever they want, the will set their sights on Japan next.

Come on, the last time around we didn't want to risk war with China, so we left the job half done. Even though China was participating in the war anyway. Look at all the half-done wars and unfinished battles that have languished for years and tell me what good came out of them. You end up with a more powerful enemy with the idea that since you didn't fight to the end before that you'll not push the issue the next time.

We can either fight North Korea in North Korea or in Japan. Just a matter of timing.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Carewolf]

Yes, basically something a few guys in the middle of desert could do a century ago. How hard can it be?

PS: Don't tell anyone that it will actually work and is only inefficient.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Russia(or parts thereof) doing the same thing every time they threaten to fire up Chernobyl if they don't get some aid?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[pitdingo]

sure does. but...we have it no where near as bad as the poor N Koreans. At least yet...the democrats and republicans sure are trying though.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

A gun-type nuclear device must have the plug penetrate the standing segment with sufficient speed and precision as to generate a runaway nuclear reaction. If it enters incorrectly or too slow, it "fizzles", or detonates with a much lower load. An implosion type nuclear device must have the conventional explosives detonate with precise synchronisity. Otherwise you just end up throwing around the ball of fissal material. All in all, quite a bit more difficult than just "firing a chunk of uranium into another chunk". Definately doable, just more difficult.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

Ture enough. I can't picture what life there must be like. Impoverished, no jobs, no future except what happens every day happening again.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton and the IAEA negotiated to place cameras in the reactor. To behonest, it was a fair arrangement

Fair, I guess that depends on which way you look at it. Flip this whole thing around. Would the USA think it was fair if the North Koreans had cameras in their reactors. Why can the country with the biggest nuclear cache determine what other countries have weapons? Think Iran, Think Korea. Now think Israel. No pressure on them is there?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Marvelicious]

Yeah, personally, I'm feeling an "increasingly hostile attitude from Washington" myself... maybe I should get me one 'o them nukes!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Decaff]

It is easy!

No it isn't.

You just need a critical mass of U238

Enriching uranium to get this mass is very tricky, as the two isotopes of uranium have very little difference in mass.

assemble it in a way that they'll be pushed together again by the conv. explosion

That is hard. You need to assemble a critical mass with the right geometry and at the right speed or else you will end up with either nothing or a nasty hot radioactive mess but no large explosion.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Dharzhak]

What's that old adage about catching more flies?

You can't catch flies with vinegar, but you *can* catch them with a hammer.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[banzai51]

The problem is that we tend to take wild statements from guys like this at face value. NK has been promising fire and dealth for the world for years. They are looking for an effect and by overreacting to what they say, we're giving them that effect.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

Congratulations, ass, you just did exactly what we all expected. Instead of addressing the issue, you clouded it with the same anti-US crap we've heard over and over.

I asked you politely not to do that, so why would you make it your entire post? Are you illiterate? Stupid? There has to be a logical reason.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

I believe that currently you can, it seems we cut spending on the collection program so a lot of Russian nukes are just sort of up for sale. Might cost you a few million though, but I understand there is no waiting period or background check.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

"Actually its not...your statement is idiotic. Check you timeline; In Feb of 2002, Bush calls NK part of an 'Axis of Evil.' It isn't until late 2002 / early 2003 that NK restarted their nuclear weapons program"

He did that because he KNEW they were developing nukes. Everyone with any kind of intelligence program did. Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you trying to make it appear as though we didn't know they had nukes?

In 2001, in fact, N Korea met with the Russians to discuss... long range ballistic missiles. Why would they NEED ballistic missiles? You know why, but you'll try to find a way around it.

If you are wrong (which you are, it's clear) just say so.

I'll gladly accept your apology now.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

First, thanks for attempting to discuss this reasonably. Propaganda gets so tiring.

Honestly, no I don't think they have anything to fear. While they are a brutal dictatorship ( I really expected someone to try to refute that, by the way) what reason would we go there for?

There's simply no real upside, unlike in Iraq, where (agree or disagree) the possibility for something completely new (a real arab democracy) finally exists. Cynics will talk about oil, which we all must agree also plays a part. What equivalent exists in N Korea?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

No, I am not Anti-US. I am actully very pro-America. But one thing I should point out is that I didn't resort to name calling. But I believe I did answer your question, just go back and re-read it.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[xrobertcmx]

I think the problem here is that you somehow missed the sarcasm, and may be a bit narrow on the scope of what you want to see. This happens to everyone.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

"Little boy" is a joke, take two subcritical masses when combined goes critical. Now "fatboy", which starts as a hollow sphere of nuke material (decreases area density to subcritical), and line the exterior with explosives & detonators that will all go off simultaneously to collapse the sphere to a critical mass, that's a little trickier. Does anyone here remember what is critical mass (U238 & Pu)? The most amusing aspect of this is that people don't realize the real engineering feat is not building a working a-bomb, its refining fissile material. If you refine too much in a small area, you cause a mini meltdown from the material. You're stuck with doing things like putting the raw ore into a liquid or gaseous state, and using hexaflourine (one of the nastiest acids made by man) to precipitate it out, or centrafuging it out. Throw in that the radioactive material is degrading your equipment, and forget silly details like worker safety, its still quite an engineering feat. Pretty much the domain of nation states with money to throw around. (I wonder what's the lowest realistic budget.) Or a multinational engineering corporation (though it would be hell on the quarterly statement). Isn't it ironic if terrorists ever get to light off a nuke, its going to come from the US or Soviet's arsenals?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Icephreak1]

NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave... from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world... and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.

Three attempts at the word "its", and you missed every single time. Bust out that dictionary.

- IP

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

"somehow missed the sarcasm" :) If that was your best attempt at sarcasm, you have work to do.

And if you read the follow ups, I wasn't the only one who missed the "sarcasm". Your post reads exactly like so many other anti-bush anti-us crap we've all had to wade through. It's tiring. In the future, in order to avoid such problems, remember that sarcasm is about the TONE of the message, so web boards are the worst possible place for it.

Oh, and get better at it. Poor job, really.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this moderated as funny? it's both true and scary. Nuclear capability is not much harder than obtaining enough enriched uranium or plutonium.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

> This statement is idiotic. North Korea had
> nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now
> they're afraid because... they developed nukes.

United States Congress has this year sponsored "Freedom Fighters" in the following countries, with the following sums:

Russia $150,000,000
Iran $150,000,000
Egypt $25,000,000
Syria $5,000,000
Venezuela $20,000,000
Cuba $40,000,000
North Korea $20,000,000
Myanmar $12,000,000

These include terrorist groups like MEK

It should prove that MANY COUNTRIES have a LOT
to fear from U.S., even if they've never developed
nukes.

It also seems that US going wimpy on North Korea,
and bullish on Iran, just proves that nukes are worth it in their deterrent value.

You don't hear Rumsfeld being uncertain about Iranian nukes, whereas you can read him doubt
that North Korean nukes even exist. The funny thing is, that Iran claims to have none, and North is claiming to have several. Read it here.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[EatingPie]

Korea - we want to develop nuclear power

USA - we'll help you with technology for nuclear power so you don't need to develop it yourself
...many years later...

Korea - er, hello. where's our help?
USA - fuck you
Korea - fuck you too then

Actually...

Korea - we want to develop nuclear WEAPONS
USA - we will PAY YOU not to develop them, and help you develop power

...immediately afterward...

USA - Here's your check (I recall $2,000,000, but I think that's low).
Korea - THANKS!

... Many years later ...

Korea - We want to develop Nuclear WEAPONS
USA - We ain't payin' you this time!
Korea - Fuck you
USA - LET'S NEGOTIATE
Korea - Fuck you

... Nine months Later ...

Korea - We got bombs now!

I've gotten facts wrong on posts before, so your post is forgivable. I followed this and supported the Clinton Administration decision to play the "blackmail" money. My thinking: What the hey, it's only money. *shrugs* But all that did was postpone (possibly aid?) Korea's drive for a Nuclear Arsenal.

And it was obvious to me, and the Bush administration -- who actuallly followed/remembered past dealings -- that last year's rumblings from North Korea was just another money blackmail attempt.

So don't just rag on the US and the Bush administration. North Korea is the one making the weapons and using them as a threat... Oh and they have an ICBM capable of striking Japan, who they hate with a passion...

-Pie

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[tupambao]

U-238...U-235 they all sound to me like the insignias of those German U-Boots (submarines).

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew that Iraq was hit hard in the latest war, but damn...they're in SE Asia now?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Taliban eliminated opium production. American invasion destroyed the country, has caused drug productions to soar, and Afghanistan is now again the biggest opium producer and exporter in the world. US companies got the big oil pipeline from
Caspia that they wanted.

HISTORICALLY, money is and has always been the main motivator for war.

Ignorant americans who believe the PR, jesus..
Will you guys go to school!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should americans give a fsck about either?

Just stay in america.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[HeghmoH]

Yeah, it's so easy that it took an incredibly huge effort by half the world's economy several years to design and build one in the 1940s.

Of course, it's become easier since then, but it's not that much easier.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

> depends, do they believe their own propaganda?
> You assume that we are dealing with a rational
> government (well, technically two rational
> governments). When a government starves its own
> citizens and uses the relatives of political
> dissidents for bio-chem warfare experiments, I
> have serious doubts about how rational they are.

I agree! Let's stage a coup and kick the bastard Bushies out!!!
No more starvation in US!
No more biochem warfare experiments on our own people!

NO MORE BUSH!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because the method is close enough to the truth to deceive those who don't know the details. U-235 is the isotope that's needed; and you don't split the atom before hand -- you separate chunks of the fissile material and bring them together at the moment of detonation.

Eh. Explaining the joke's too hard; if you don't get it, you probably never will.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Coryoth]

Honestly, no I don't think they have anything to fear. While they are a brutal dictatorship ( I really expected someone to try to refute that, by the way) what reason would we go there for?

Whether the US would in reality or not is somewhat of a side point. Current rhetoric is that all brutal dictators and enemies of democracy need to be afraid - whether threats come in the form of diplomatic cajoling, sanctions or military action, Bush has stated that they will be going after non-democratic states. As far as NK is concerned that gives them the right to defend themselves.

Similarly one could ask why should the US fear NK havign nuclear weapons. Its not like they'd actually use them - any efforts to do so would see NK utterly destroyed: I don't think you'd find any objectors to military action against NK in the world community if NK actually used nuclear weapons against SK or Japan. So for what reason would NK use nuclear weapons? And if they're just going to sit on them as a Mutuall Assured Destruction threat against invasion, and the US isn't going to invade... why should the US worry?

There's simply no real upside, unlike in Iraq, where (agree or disagree) the possibility for something completely new (a real arab democracy) finally exists.

A real arab democracy other than Egypt you mean? Or, for that matter, the new arab democracy of Afghanistan? Two real arab democracies not enough?

What equivalent exists in N Korea?

Ridding the world of a brutal dictator who has killed (through both malice, and incompetence) many many more innocent people than Hussein could aspire to? Eliminating an unpredictable foreign dictator in possession of WMD? Okay, so clearly those were not the reasons for Iraq. You're claiming the reason for Iraq was to add yet another democracy to the already growing list of arab democracies. How about disarming the continuing simmering tension that is affecting the entire asian region? SK, Japan, China, and Taiwan are all being made to feel a little nervous by NK and their brutal dictatorship. If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia?

In the end, regardless of the reality of the US intentions, NK can make a fairly reasonable case that they feel threatened, and that they have some legitimate fears. In the end it is Bush's rhetoric that has helped back NK here, and whether Bush really meant it or not doesn't matter any more.

Jedidiah.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is
> better off with a dictatorial communism these days?

I dunno about politics, but I do know, they would be better off without mutated children and people dying of AGENT ORANGE.

They could sure use some clean-up aid down there.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[delong]

A real arab democracy [wikipedia.org] other than Egypt you mean? Or, for that matter, the new arab democracy of Afghanistan? Two real arab democracies not enough?

Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it.

Second, Afghanistan is not an Arab country.

SK, Japan, China, and Taiwan are all being made to feel a little nervous by NK and their brutal dictatorship. If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia?

That's what the six-party talks, initiated by the Bush Administration, is all about. North Korea is amenable to political and economic pressure, and the military options are not attractive. Pentagon wargames project 6 million dead within the first 48 hours or so of a Korean War II. It is mountainous, a veritable fortress on either side of the DMZ, and nearly 4 million troops stare at each other across no-man's land. Comparing Iraq to North Korea is comparing apples to oranges. Each problem has its own solution. Some have no solution.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[rovingeyes]

The regime maintains power through fear and the projection of military strength while the basic necessites for citizens are ignored. Without external aid, this might be the one legitimate regime that may decide "you know, fuck it. Let's take someone else with us."

Wow seems more like our policy than theirs.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Coryoth]

Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it.

Egypt regularly holds multiparty elections. Yes there are certainly complaints about potential interference, and they are justified to some extent. That doesn't make it "not a democracy". There were complaints about interference in the US elections. That doesn't suddenly make it (as some loopy Democrats like to claim) a dictatorship. Egypt is certainly not a model democracy, but it is one. If you want an arab democracy you would have done far better weeding out the issues an existing one instead of trying to impose one where it didn't previously exist.

That's what the six-party talks, initiated by the Bush Administration, is all about. North Korea is amenable to political and economic pressure, and the military options are not attractive. Pentagon wargames project 6 million dead within the first 48 hours or so of a Korean War II. It is mountainous, a veritable fortress on either side of the DMZ, and nearly 4 million troops stare at each other across no-man's land. Comparing Iraq to North Korea is comparing apples to oranges.

In practical terms, yes. I am not suggesting the current approach to NK is the wrong one. I am certainly not suggesting invasion is the right approach. What I am suggesting is that NK can, via the rhetoric and actions of the current administration, make some somewhat credible claims that they are "under threat" and should be "allowed to provide for their own defense". Reality is not relevant when we're discussing diplomatic rhetoric, and unfortunately the current administration has walked right in to providing NK with some good excuses for doing what they're doing.

Jedidiah.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[temojen]

Plus, U238 is lying around all over the place in Iraq and Kosovo.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Tobias.Davis]

Very true, I wish you were trying to be funny but we both know you are not.

Now I just wish I had not read the post, I might get a knock :-(

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[remosain]

"Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it."

Somebody call the CIA and please let them know they are wrong ... because everybody knows the above statement.

--
All of this is from the CIA World FactBook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ eg.html

Government type: republic

Executive branch:
chief of state: President Mohammed Hosni MUBARAK (since 14 October 1981)
head of government: Prime Minister Ahmed NAZIF (since 9 July 2004)
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president
elections: president nominated by the People's Assembly for a six-year term, the nomination must then be validated by a national, popular referendum; national referendum last held 26 September 1999 (next to be held NA October 2005); prime minister appointed by the president
election results: national referendum validated President MUBARAK's nomination by the People's Assembly to a fourth term

Political parties and leaders:
Nasserist Arab Democratic Party or Nasserists [Dia' al-din DAWUD]; National Democratic Party or NDP [President Mohammed Hosni MUBARAK] - governing party; National Progressive Unionist Grouping or Tagammu [Rifaat EL-SAID]; New Wafd Party or NWP [No'man GOMA]; Socialist Liberal Party or Al-Ahrar [Hilmi SALIM]; Tomorrow Party or Al-Ghad [Ayman NOUR]
note: formation of political parties must be approved by the government

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[CptNerd]

"Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it."

Somebody call the CIA and please let them know they are wrong ... because everybody knows the above statement.

Oh, now we're supposed to believe the CIA.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[CaptainAvatar]

Pentagon wargames project 6 million dead within the first 48 hours or so of a Korean War II.

References? How could there be so many deaths - are the use of nukes assumed? If so, surely that's a worst case scenario, not a likely one.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[suckmysav]

Shouldn't that be "ka-boom"?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not easy. The theory is easy to explain; the *technology* to actually produce a bomb and bomb grade material is not easy.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[randallpowell]

How do you really feel?

Also, how is the Bible Belt these days?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ArcherB]

Clinton mulled a cruise and air missle strike to take away NK's ability to make weapons, and opted for the placement of cameras in the hope that a diplomatic response coupled with aid would work. Plus, he knew hitting NK could result in seoul being behind enemy lines in 48 hours in the event of a war.

I'm getting tired of people thinking that our men and women there are merely speed-bumps on the way to Seoul. I think our boys will do a bit better. For example, we have M1 tanks in Korea. N. Korea has nothing short of a Nuke that can penetrate the frontal armor of the M1. This is just one part of our ground forces and not even our best tank (the best being the M1A2). Of course, we still have our unmatched Air Force, Navy, Marines, Air Cav and so on. The instant that the NKorean Army crossed into the DMZ, they receive a constant pounding by artillery (pre-aimed), Apaches, and relentless air power. All of this has been planned over and over again since the '50's looking at all possibilities. I don't think the N. Koreans are able to get past the DMZ, much less to Seoul.

I used to think that the main reason we had for taking N. Korea out was S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan and other countries that N. Korea threatens. Then I realized that most of the missile proliferation that is happening around the world (Pakistan, Iraq, Syria) comes directly from N. Korea. We invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's and were going to export them. We know N. Korea has delivery options and is distributing them. I also understand that if Iraq had WMD's, no one would protest the war, otherwise they wouldn't be bitching that "Bush lied" so much.

BTW, N. Korea says they have a nuke. N. Korea has never tested a nuclear device, they just claim to have constructed one.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll never know, because Washington has never been friendly towards North Korea.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, N. Korea says they have a nuke. N. Korea has never tested a nuclear device, they just claim to have constructed one.

The first attempt of most countries at a nuke is usually a hit. It is same as, for instance, planes... Just because Boeing did not test yet their last airplane, means that it has serious chances to crash.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[edinjapan]

Well, since I'm living in Tokyo and the last ballistic test by the North Koreans was of a missle that can easily reach out and touch any part of the four main islands-I say Dubya should "nuke em". No warning, no threats, just fire off a slew of stealthy cruise missles and target the suspected and confirmed nuclear and chemical weapons sites. Of course there will be nuclear fallout, collateral deaths and casualties and a slew of difficult diplomatic problems to deal with. World trust of the current Republican regime will fall to an all time low, the prestige of the USA will be tarnished but, many of the extremist Islamic groups and countries will sit up and take notice, many will tone down their rhetoric and operations-afterall the leaders are are worried about their skins and usually require the rank and file terrorists risk their skins and and those of their families to execute the groups' policies. A few nukes would change those perceptions in the same way it changed the Japanese military's in WW2.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's afraid of North Korea? The US have dropped nukes once. What will hold 'em back from doing that again?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

"Similarly one could ask why should the US fear NK havign nuclear weapons"

Because NK would sell them to the highest bidder. That would put nukes on the open market.

If you are a reasonable individual, I find it impossible to believe that prospect doesn't scare you.

As for the rest of your post, stop trying to tell me what I'm claiming. I claimed exactly waht I said, nothing more. Stop reading things into my post to further your argument.

"If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia"

Because it's stable (relatively) already. Far far more stable than the middle east. Not sure how you could make an argument otherwise.

Asia= NK, and what else?

Middle East=Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Egypt, etc.

You can't honestly be trying to claim Asia is less stable?

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

I was very specific when I said REAL democracy. If you are unable to see that Egypt is not a REAL democracy, then what's the point of wasting further time with you.

I also notice you fail to own up to your idiotic mistake of claiming Afghanistan is an arab country.

You clearly are not educated enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently, otherwise you wouldn't have made such mistakes.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

I love this. The CIA is evil, but when it serves you you quote their factbook. Well, this time I'll play the "CIA is puppet of the government and will say anything to support the Bush regume" card.

So refute that. Then, the next time you try that stupid tactic, I'll simply repeat your comments.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

He did that because he KNEW they were developing nukes. Everyone with any kind of intelligence program did. Are you too stupid to understand that, or are you trying to make it appear as though we didn't know they had nukes?

In 2001, in fact, N Korea met with the Russians to discuss... long range ballistic missiles. Why would they NEED ballistic missiles? You know why, but you'll try to find a way around it.

If you are wrong (which you are, it's clear) just say so.

I'll gladly accept your apology now.

Ahh, a troll. Nice work.

So you're refering to the intellience community, the same one that claimed there were WMD in Iraq? That community? Please, check google for the history of events....it doesn't support your 'theory.'

NK restarted their nuclear power plant to begin their nuclear weapons project. Yet you claim they ALREADY had them. So tell us wise one, if they've had them for three years, why only announce it now?

Apology? No, I think a piss off is more in order for you.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

How about disarming the continuing simmering tension that is affecting the entire asian region? SK, Japan, China, and Taiwan are all being made to feel a little nervous by NK and their brutal dictatorship. If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia?

How about we just let China, Japan, SK and Taiwan take care of the matter themselves. IIRC, China already has nuclear weapons.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

"Ahh, a troll"

You don't have to introduce yourself, we know who you are.

"So you're refering to the intellience community, the same one that claimed there were WMD in Iraq? That community"

Yes, and since NK ADMITTED to having nukes, they were right. What does the fact that they were wrong someplace else have to do with anything? Oh right, you're trying to change the subject YET AGAIN because you were proven wrong.

"NK restarted their nuclear power plant to begin their nuclear weapons project. Yet you claim they ALREADY had them"

Never said that so stop lying. I said they were DEVELOPING them, which is not the same. If lying and putting words in people's mouths is the best you can do, I understand now why you're so inept when it comes to international relations. It's all true, even though you don't like it.

So, instead of shooting the messenger for fucking up your simplistic anti-US world view, how about you improve your reading comprehension and educate yourself more.

You never did refute my statements, by the way. Because you can't.

"Apology? No, I think a piss off is more in order for you"

I should have known better than to expect civilized behavior from you.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

You F*ing Liberal. You can't see that Clinton basically handed them the ability to make these weapons along with cash and whatever else? No, just like everything else you just blame it on Bush for having this handed to him. Do us a favor and move to Canada or France or something.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[plague3106]

"Ahh, a troll"

You don't have to introduce yourself, we know who you are.

Hmm, looking at your other posts in this thread, and your posting history (which has quite a few flamebaits and trolls), I think everyone is aware that its you who are the troll. As such, this will be my last reply to you.

Yes, and since NK ADMITTED to having nukes, they were right. What does the fact that they were wrong someplace else have to do with anything? Oh right, you're trying to change the subject YET AGAIN because you were proven wrong.

Its called credibility. The past indicates they have little. Because NK admitted only a few days ago to having nukes does not mean the community was correct when they were saying it YEARS ago. They've been saying something, which until very recently, hasn't been true. I'm not trying to defect anything...YOU were the one that brought the intelligence community into this discussion.

Never said that so stop lying. I said they were DEVELOPING them, which is not the same. If lying and putting words in people's mouths is the best you can do, I understand now why you're so inept when it comes to international relations. It's all true, even though you don't like it.

Its kind of hard to develop a nuclear weapon without enriched uranium, isn't it? Hence the reason they restarted their reactors, to produce said uranium.

So, instead of shooting the messenger for fucking up your simplistic anti-US world view, how about you improve your reading comprehension and educate yourself more. ... I should have known better than to expect civilized behavior from you.

Have you read your own posts? Obviously not...you're the one spouting off with insults to anyone that challenges you.

I've refuted your claims, and you refuse to see that. I've given you the relevant time line, and all you've done is claim 'hey, somebody else said they were researching before bushs speech.' Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001? If you do, I'd like to see it, because otherwise, the events I've pointed out back up my claim.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[ifwm]

Being called a troll in a forum full of people like you is a compliment. It means that I am getiing all the information, instead of propaganda.

And if the best you could do to refute your own lies is to attemp to draw attention to my posting history, well go ahead and try. My karma is positive for a reason.

One point that you must own up to. You said I claimed the North Koreans had nukes. READ the thread, realize you are a liar, and apologize. Because you can't find that statement anywhere in my posts.

Why lie?

AND you STILL didn't refute me. You tried lying, you tried obfuscation, and you tried putting words in my mouth. You attacked me personally, despite the fact that I have been more than reasonable.

But I'm the troll right?

"Do you (or the people who's views you are using as support) have ANY proof whatsoever that NK was attempting to develop nuclear weapons before Feb 2001?"

"http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/16/us.nkorea /"

Right there, fucker. They admit to developing them since they agreed not to in... 1994.

1994. So shut the fuck up, admit you were wrong like a man, and apologize.

Or will we hear another equvocation? I know what I expect to see.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[mink]

"Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?"

Considering how corrupt the government we were backing in that conflitc was. I have to say possibly they are better off. But the other poster is correct about the effects our meddling have certainly made it worse for the survivors and their childern no matter who won.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[mink]

Dont forget that oil pipeline that we needed a secure afganistan for.

Looking at the map, a conspiricy theorist might say if we can occupy Iran then we can run pipelines wherever we want in the middle east.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh. Explaining the joke's too hard; if you don't get it, you probably never will.

I seriously don't think it was a joke in the first place. Someone just was thinking of the wrong isotope. Ha Ha.

In related news, I just bought a new Honda Corolla. Get it? Honda Corolla! Damn I'm funny.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Marvelicious]

uhhhh, c'mon lotto!

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Kosi]

Good thing that I am neither inside this "homeland" nor it's citizen. I can care a fsck about them.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea. And North Korea has a lot of ertillery.

Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action")

[Anonymous Coward]

North korean just want to protect their soverinity.
If U.S respect North korea regim they would give up nuclear power.

Hammer Time

[PizzaFace]

A hostile country has developed nukes that threaten us and our allies. Thank God we are protected by the Bush Doctrine so we can invade and take their nukes away.

Oops, I forgot, the U.S. can't invade. Our army has been busy the past two years taking away the non-existent nuclear capability of Iraq.

Kids, do you know how to "duck and cover"?

Re:Hammer Time

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Hehe. I showed "duck and cover" to a colleague who grew up in East Germany. I was curious as to whether the 'other side' had a similar interest in teaching their children to be paranoid misfits.

The answer is no.

Hello, TESTING???

[what_the_frell]

If they indeed do have nuclear weapons, they would have tested them somewhere, with a very obvious mushroom cloud visible for 100's of miles and seismic data that would have been seen picked up by just about every earthquake-sensing station around the world. If they have weapons, they're untested. Either that or they're bluffing. Unless I missed something in the news.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[smooth wombat]

If they indeed do have nuclear weapons, they would have tested them somewhere, with a very obvious mushroom cloud visible for 100's of miles

Nuclear tests are now conducted underground. Above ground testing was banned by the UN decades ago and any country who has nuclear weapons has always tested them below ground. The exception being Israel who was testing its nuclear weapons with South Africa when sanctions were on South Africa for its apartheid policies.

No known large-scale tests were evidenced but there is some evidence to support small tests as seismic data indicated unusual earthquake-like motion.

As far as seismic data is concerned with North Korea, since they gave their info to Pakistan, who successfully set off at least one nuclear device, it would be reasonable to assume that North Korea knows its design will work.

Here are some links which show the before and after photos of Pakistans underground nuclear tests:

Link 1
Link 2

This link has a very nice and detailed story, with pics, about Indias nuclear tests as does this link.

In the case of Indias tests, there were some clouds thrown up but nothing near like one is used to seeing from the nuclear tests the U.S. performed in the Nevada desert.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an idea... Read the article.

Friggin' right wingers.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Anonymous Coward]

This is quite possible. However, depending on the device, it may not have to be tested. The bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima, a uranium device, had never been tested. The only test the US conducted before dropping a nuke on a city was Trinity, which was a plutonium device, the same make as that dropped on Nagasaki. Scientists were so sure of the math involved with the Hiroshima device that they never bothered.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[HeghmoH]

You don't need to test them. Testing was useful in the 40s when nobody had built the things before, and it's useful for making your weapons more efficient, but if you don't mind spending extra weight and material, you can have a 100% working bomb with no testing whatsoever with the current state of the art.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[mikael]

There is the mystery of the "Ryanggang explosion", also documented in Wikipedia.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Alioth]

Not necessarily - the Hiroshima bomb was never tested; it was considered simple enough that they were confident it'd go off. Now any nuke NK would have that's useful would need to be a newer design, but if the design was a stolen one that had adequate testing by someone else, they may feel they don't need to test.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[nsupathy]

Nope. Pakistan and North Korea has traded missiles and nuclear device to each other. North Korean nuclear weapons are from Pakistan and they are tested indeed.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Creepy]

actually, there is evidence of exactly that.

First off, though, North Korea has been generating enriched Plutonium (and Uranium, I think) for several years in defiance of US threats of sanctions. They are known to have enough Plutonium to create several nuclear weapons.

Second, a Pakistani scientist sold secrets to building nuclear weapons to North Korea. Pakistan has nuclear capability and have demonstrated it. There are also rumors in the other direction - that Pakistan willingly allowed North Korea to test a plutonium device on its soil in 1998 when they still lacked enough plutonium to do it themselves. This makes some sense when you also realize that North Korea doesn't have the desert to perform its own nuclear testing, so if they did explode a nuke either above or underground, they'd likely pollute their water supply. Still, they may have done just that on the Korean-China border (see the Ryanggang explosion from late last year.

A quick google search dug up some references about the 1998 testing.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Anonymous Coward]

they couldnt test them underground? Maybe they arent concerned about testing, maybe they are willing to use untested missles with untested nuclear warheads in them. Maybe they are extremely scared of a certain insane western leader that has threatened them in the past.

Re:Hello, TESTING???

[Master Ben]

The bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima, a uranium device, had never been tested.

Sure it was. They chose the best testing grounds possible: the streets of Hiroshima. But then of course they had 2 designs and had to test the 2nd as well so they chose the fine streets of Nagasaki.

The tests turned out to be a success.

If you're going to do it...

[http101]

...do it right. Don't bomb the fuck out of my kids and the rest of my family because you "hate Americans" due to some vitamin-D deficient politician's unilateral wet-dream of a decision. I didn't do anything to Korea, in fact, I was being supportive of other nations til about 5 minutes ago when the extreme potential of having my home country turned into a free-range microwave oven was unearthed. This is similar to holding a conversion with someone as they load a 12-gauge shotgun. Would anyone else feel a little nervous standing in front a someone who's waving a boom-stick?

Can't ... Stop ... Fingers

[mark_jabroni]

Also today, the CIA has announced North Korea has no nuclear weapons.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[GodBlessTexas]

You may or may not remember that part of the UN resolution that stopped Gulf War I was not only that they end their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, but that they also show PROOF that they had done so. Saddam never presented any such proof. Hence, Saddam didn't comply with the UN resoltuions in the first place.

However, now this whole SNAFU is a convenient excuse to ignore UN resolutions, but again, they usually got ignored anyway.

we already know...

[TheRealJFM]

"The North also **repeated** a claim to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/42 52 481.stm

Also:

"28 September: North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/26 04 437.stm

This is just a repetition of a bargaining trick they've used before, do not listen to them.

They want us to be afraid of them as much as our leaders do....

Re:we already know...

[KarmaMB84]

The funny thing is the US nuclear threat would vaporize their entire country in a single salvo :| Who are they kidding?

Re:we already know...

[TheRealJFM]

"The funny thing is the US nuclear threat would vaporize their entire country in a single salvo :| Who are they kidding?"

well it's got us talking about it, hasn't it?

the threat of nukes wouldn't be against us, it'd be against its neighbours... but thats not the point either.

the use of ANY nukes is a bad thing. by ANYONE.
in nuclear war there is no good guy or bad guy, the outcome would always be the same.

we (by who i mean those who can't afford bunkers etc) would be screwed.

two rights don't make a wrong, etc.

I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Malor]

You know, a thought occurred to me the other day. Remember that huge explosion in NK last year? Some sources have claimed that it was a failed assassination attempt. Since that time, as far as I know, we haven't seen ANYTHING of KJI. There have been multiple signs of his hold on power weakening, like portraits being taken down for awhile. Further, his 'appearances' have been video-only, wearing clothes that are at least two years old.

So what if he's dead, killed in that explosion, and they've been covering it up? NK is exactly the kind of place to try to do something like that.

Just a thought....

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

i recall seeing videos of a recent press conference with his son annoucing him as his succesor

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they need to cover it up? He has three possible successors one of which is in his early to mid 30s.

I would think that his sons would have no problem ascending to take his position. If it wasn't one of them wouldn't one of their military leaders come to power being that they are so militaristic?

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

sources ?

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[RobertB-DC]

Since that time, as far as I know, we haven't seen ANYTHING of KJI. There have been multiple signs of his hold on power weakening, like portraits being taken down for awhile.

I have noticed some signs that the country is tipping from the bizarro to the insane. It was just a few months ago that North Korea promised to return to the negotiating table... but only if the US would quit saying such mean things about their beloved leader.

There's just no good way to deal with this country. Clinton didn't have much luck -- sure, he kept them talking, but they took advantage of him without shame. Wasn't it Clinton who visited for some big event in a NKorean stadium, only to find out later that the speeches all denounced the US as he sat there smiling? Bush tried changing course, but it did no good, either. Everyone knows -- especially the North Koreans -- that any "liberation" would result in the immediate immolation of Seoul, whether by nukes or by the effects of several hundred conventional missiles.

As far ase I can tell, North Korea is going to remain a huge insane asylum until someone gets trigger-happy and drops Da Bomb on Seoul. The scary thing is that it could actually happen.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[madaxe42]

Kim Jong-Il has always been dead. We have always been at war with EastAsia....

In all seriousness, it doesn't matter if KJI is dead or not - the North Korean regime is here to stay - no amount of military force will change that - it is *far* too deeply ingrained in the majority of the populace there. Having visited NK some years ago on a tourist visa (which is like gold dust) I was, I must confess, rather surprised by what I found. Generally, in urban areas, the quality of life was good - party members lived comfortably, others less comfortably, but a lot better than much of what you'll see in the western world. We weren't allowed into the countryside, however, so.....

Short of a popular revolution, which isn't going to happen, nothing will change the situation there. It's perfectly possible that they have a nuclear capability, but they aren't quite the mad-cap nation the western media seems to wish to portray them as.

The degree of control held over the populace by the state there is astounding - it would be extraordinarily hard for anyone to organise any kind of dissent - the vast majority are party supporters, and the last thing you want to do is criticise the government in front of someone who can make you disappear.

Juche is their way of life. They have no real wish to expand, they just want to be left alone. For now, at any rate.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Wasn't it Clinton who visited for some big event in a NKorean stadium, only to find out later that the speeches all denounced the US as he sat there smiling?

Sounds like you've been listening to too much rush limbaugh.
Clinton has never publically visited North Korea, as president or otherwise.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Elvon Livengood]

Nothing definitive, but this article* indicates that he's been seen as recently as January. Personally I'm certain that if "Dear Leader" had vanished, the speculation in the international media would be rampant.

*It's possible that "Let's Trim Our Hair According to Socialist Lifestyle" doesn't sound dorky in Korean. But I doubt it.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[antifoidulus]

Um, no, it wasn't Clinton, it was his secretary of state, Madeline Albright who went to NK.....

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[hairykrishna]

I always thought that explosion was a cover for a underground nuclear test. You see, the only way to be really, really sure your nuke design works as expected is to set one off. You can't do this above ground, openly because people would get upset (i.e. the US, possibly even china). It is possible to set off a nuke underground in a chamber packed with charcoal to absorb a lot of the energy and still get meaningful data. BUT this still produces a fairly characteristic seismic signature. You could cover this up with a BIG conventional explosion at the same time in approximately the same area.,p> How's that for a nice conspiracy theory?

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Moby Cock]

The general belief (or the last I read, about a month ago) was that his mistriss (or wife, its not clear) passed away due to cancer and he is a serious funk and has refused public appearances. Nothing sinister, just an upset old man.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[RobertB-DC]

Um, no, it wasn't Clinton, it was his secretary of state, Madeline Albright who went to NK.....

That was it, thanks. I wasn't able to google up details of the incident I remembered, but I did find this cool article on how the North Korean stadium displays use children as "human pixels" for their grand displays of supposed superiority... and how difficult it is to train children in other countries to do the same thing.

http://www.asiapacificms.com/articles/pixel_people /

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[happyemoticon]

Hitler's name was never put on any warships because those would be easily destroyed. For example, you saw the Bismarck, and the Hindenberg (which I recall was going to be called the Hitler but they changed it), go up in flames. Stalin so vehemently defended Stalingrad because in the minds of his people that would tarnish his power.

Okay, apples and oranges. Killing somebody's namesake is not killing them. But these highly nationalistic states depend in part on the percieved omnipotence of their leaders. Someone has already posted on how KJI's entire line are worshiped as would-be gods. For them to admit that KJI was or even could be killed by assassins would be to sacrifice this, and threaten the pseudo-religious fantaticism that keeps the nation ticking over.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Citizen of Earth]

the North Korean regime is here to stay - no amount of military force will change that - it is *far* too deeply ingrained in the majority of the populace there.

One explanation for its insanity may be that the regime is teetering on the edge of collapse. In any case, I think that you vastly overestimate how much any oppressed people actually like its totalitarian government. There will be a big celebration in Iran in the next week to commemorate the takeover of the country by a small band of Islamic terrorists, but I doubt there would be many people there if they were not threatened into showing up. Iran will make an especially big show to influence those foolish enough to believe they have popular support.

Having visited NK some years ago on a tourist visa ... We weren't allowed into the countryside, however

You only saw what The Party wanted you to see. In the countryside, millions of people are slowly starving to death. Look at a satellite picture of the area at night.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[ThousandStars]

I was, I must confess, rather surprised by what I found. Generally, in urban areas, the quality of life was good - party members lived comfortably, others less comfortably, but a lot better than much of what you'll see in the western world. We weren't allowed into the countryside, however, so.....

Did you see Camp 22? Or did they leave that part of their "way of life" out of the tour?

Juche is their way of life. They have no real wish to expand, they just want to be left alone. For now, at any rate.

Growing drugs and selling them on the international market is part of North Korea's effort to stay afloat. It's also exported missile technology to anyone with the cash. Given NK's penchant for selling anything to the highest bidder, one of the largest fears about NK having nuclear weapons is the possibility that they will sell one -- which some third-party will set off in London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles or Washington. NK will retain some degree of plausible deniability. The world will suffer with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualities, and the catastrophic economic consequences that would result.

Also, keep in mind that it was NK that invaded the South suddenly in 1950.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

...they've been covering it up? NK is exactly the kind of place to try to do something like that.

JFK anyone?

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT this still produces a fairly characteristic seismic signature. You could cover this up with a BIG conventional explosion at the same time in approximately the same area.,p> How's that for a nice conspiracy theory?

Pretty bad considering that the explosion detected wasn't anywhere near nuke-sized, and it took place in an urban area, and they destroyed some very important rail lines into China in the process.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[John Newman]

but I did find this cool article on how the North Korean stadium displays use children as "human pixels" for their grand displays of supposed superiority... and how difficult it is to train children in other countries to do the same thing.

Bah, you can even tric^H^Hain Harvard "children" to do the same thing.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[qyiet]

Remember that huge explosion in NK last year? Some sources have claimed that it was a failed assassination attempt.

DAMN That is some assasination.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Alsee]

That might cover it to the press, but the gamma and EMP and radiation would still be picked up by US and probably other intellegence agencies. And I doubt a conventional surface explosive would adaquately mask the seismic signature. And I'm pretty sure there would also be a huge "pothole" on the surface above the test.

One or more ways it would be detected by someone.

It would only stay secret if the US and China and whoever else decided to cover it up as well.

-

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Much better than they slightly crazed person near the top who claims to have known one North Korean a decade ago.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Hmm, Ok its very dark. Could it be actually a good thing? Going to sleep early insterad of sitting in front of your computer/TV is good for your health.

Re:I wonder if Kim Jong-Il is dead?

[slasar]

"his 'appearances' have been video-only, wearing clothes that are at least two years old."

How do you figure this? Was he in Versace instead of Yves St Laurent???

No big deal

[)-(ellbilly]

Send in "Team America" http://www.teamamerica.com/

Re:No big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this Interesting?

And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[lythander]

Not that we didn't (or shouldn't have) know(n), but it presented a governing coalition with an agenda and a chip on it's collective shoulder an excuse, a mechanism by which to dupe a credulous population.

I think this particular whack job (Kin Jong Il) wants the sort of respectful, diplomatic (by comparison) treatment Iran is getting, rather than the sabre rattling it gets now. Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[wobblie]

Nonsense. The reason Iraq was invaded was because they didn't have any WMD. It is stupid to attack people who are threat to you, right? The reason Korea was not attacked is because they do have WMD. Unless, of course you believe the bullshit coming from Washington.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[FauxPasIII]

In what way did Saddam "bluff"? He claimed he had no WMD (a claim that has since been proven true) and offered significant cooperation
with international inspectors to prove it.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[JudgeFurious]

I disagree with you. I believe the reason North Korea wasn't invaded (and will not be invaded by the US) is simply summarized with one word, "China".

The best way to deal with Kim and his nukes is through China. Sure they don't particularly want to get involved but he's their puppet nutbar and not ours. The only sane path to checking this guy and his new toys is to put the pressure on China. Reign in that little freak or we're going to find ourselves another country to make pretty much everything we use. There are plenty of candidates out there.

Economic power is the way to go here. It's not as cool and flashy as military power but then it's also not nearly so expensive in lives. We won't do it though. No way will we do it.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way did Saddam "bluff"? He claimed he had no WMD

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. It would appear that Saddam bluffed (e.g. by intentionally leaking disinformation) that he did have WMD to neighbouring hostile states, but then found himself in a bit of a fix when asked to disclose documentation proving that the same imaginary WMD had been destroyed.

D'oh.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed.
China is the reason North Korea existed in the 50s and the reason they exist now.

Shame most people on Slashdot are too stupid and childish to admit that.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Fjandr]

I'd hardly call South Korea defenseless. They might lose a lot of individuals, but those individuals would be soldiers. North Korea would lose many more.

Additionally, South Korea doesn't have to worry about being nuked from North Korea, based simply on what ol' Kimmy-boy wants.

Unlike the power-monger US, South Korea doesn't actually want to invade North Korea. They want to reunify Korea peacefully. Fortunately for all involved the US hasn't butted in more than to make idle (and empty) threats.

The US will not invade North Korea because North Korea could inflict massive casualties on the US and/or US allies in the blink of an eye. The blatant hypocrisy is also apparent when you look at US treatment of China.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Fjandr]

How dare you actually inject factual logic into this?!

Do you disrespect our Dear Leader Bush George Il?!

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Walles]

If North Korea nuked Seoul, South Korea would lose about ten million people, most of whom would be civilians. That's a lot in my book.

What do you think "Kimmy-boy" wants that would make SK safe from a nuclear attack?

First you're saying that SK are well able to defend themselves, they you say that NK could inflict "massive casualities on the US and/or US allies". Who would those allies be, if not SK?

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

"The blatant hypocrisy"

It is called being realistic you dumbass.

"Unlike the power-monger US, South Korea doesn't actually want to invade North Korea."

Yeah, US us itching to invade one of the poorest and frankly useless places on earth and lose thousands of soldiers in the process just to satisfy its thirst for "war-mongering".

You are a fucking genius.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Fjandr]

Kim Jong Il sees one Korea. You only make areas you don't intend to use uninhabitable.

S. Korea has better weapons and technology, and a comparable army. They have a superior navy, and occasionally sink N. Korean military vessels that stray into their waters.

Nuclear missiles don't have to be aimed at land. The US parks a fleet near Japan, N. Korea could destroy it. North Korea could nuke US bases in Japan. North Korea could nuke Tokyo. They may have the capability to destroy the headquarters of the Pacific Fleet at Hawaii.

Also, there's a difference between an attacking force and a defending force. Defenders who are trained and armed tend to do more damage than a comparable force that is moving in to invade. This works in favor of both North and South Korea. South Korea doesn't have to worry as much about invasion. They can do more damage to the N. Koreans than can be done to them using conventional warfare tactics. It works for N. Korea because the only way to control them is with ground troops.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[michaelggreer]

I think South Korea is a bigger issue, but you are right that China is a major sticking point. They are the superpower in the area. However, N. Korea is, sadly, not a "puppet" of China. China has very little control over him: all they can do it turn off the oil spigots up north (which they do every once in a while).

That place is the craziest on earth, after Albania's dictatorship fell. The real scary part is that they are not a rational actor, and cannot be deterred using the traditional nuclear standoff.

These guys sent cremated remains of abducted Japanese citizens to Japan. The Japanese did DNA testing, and found that the remains were of other people. Apparently, the N Koreans did not know about DNA testing. They are locked in a crazy-box, now with nukes.

Have to say, Bush royally screwed this one up. Whatever you think of his big stick policy, it clearly is failing in Korea.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Fjandr]

*choke* That was modded insightful?

I was going for funny, but oh well. :)

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[MightyYar]

Nukes or no nukes, NK could wipe out Seoul almost immediately with artillery. They could roll in with their pathetic tanks in perhaps half a day just because of their shear overwhelming number.

There is more than one reason that NK has not been invaded, but one of those reasons is certainly Seoul's destruction.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause as you said "Economic power is the way to ge here." And China has our nutsacks over the barrel. What happens when they stop buyiung all our treasury bonds and the US dollar loses reserve status? The only reason China is keeping the US economy afloat is cause we keep buying their cheap crap. Once the latter ends, game over, death bet cashed in in.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

When the North was considering its invasion of the South, it didn't go to China to talk to Mao to see if it would be all right with him, they went to Moscow to talk with Stalin.

When the UN invaded North Korea China didn't blink until troops were standing on their border. The Chinese response wasn't out of brotherly love for fellow Communists, but out of concern for their own security.

In the 1960s the Soviets and the Chinese had a parting of ways. Since then the Stalinist and the Maoist states have been on speaking terms at best and at each others throats at worst.

North Korea was and remains loyal to the Stalinist model of Socialism. It does not and never has been on terribly friendly terms with the Chinese.

No, the reason no one has invaded North Korea since the Korean War is the guarantee of the North's safety by the Soviets. It was Soviet, not Chinese pilots, flying MIGs over the battlefields of the Korean war. It was Soviet, not Chinese equipment clutched in the hands of the Korean troops as they surged over the border into the South. It was Soviet, not Chinese military advisors that assisted the Koreans in planning and executing the offensives that opened the war. Today, of course, the Soviets are a fast fading memory, but their legacy has not passed on.

We know, because the Russians have told us, that the North Koreans were supplied with weapons by the Soviet Government, including weaponized Small Pox (India 1) and other lovely toys. An invasion of North Korea would be suicide. Weapons of Mass Destruction are not just limited to Nuclear Weapons. North Korea has long had enough chemical and biological firepower to reduce the South to a wasteland. With missiles capable of reaching the United States their capability now extends to second strike capability and thus deterrence.

To those that would, at this point, suggest a missile shield as the solution to our problems, I caution you. A missile shield serves only to antagonize. An ABM system is seen as an OFFENSIVE weapon by any country that relies on deterrence to defend itself. The development of an ABM system can rapidly lead to a use it or loose it scenario wherein preemptive strikes are necessary to prevent the loss of parity.

Moreover, the existing US deterrent is more than enough to ensure that the North does not launch on the United States or her allies without overwhelming provocation. Admittedly, we must treat the North Korean deterrent with deference and its due import, but such is the case of any military power.

As the NRA has argued, an armed society is a polite society. And while this has little place in a world with rules, government, and authority, the international system has none of those things. It is fundamentally an anarchic system. In such a system, those that have the capability to destroy each other are more apt to seek peace than those to whom war is a profitable venture.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

This Republican who favored the invasion of Iraq wants you to know he agrees with you.

Here's a legitimate opportunity to 1) improve relations with China, 2) remove a menace, and 3) empower a different sphere of influence to make the world a safer, better place to live. It just might up the standard of living for North Koreans too should the Chinese succeed.

The real question is: at what point do we say Il has crossed the line and take preemptive action?

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you think of his big stick policy, it clearly is failing in Korea.

The policy is obviously not to give in to the dictator's demands. The Bush administration is taking a slower pace on N. Korea, as it is quite unstable and in a terminal decline. Their collapse would happily be the end of all this chest-thumping nuclear showmanship. Here's to the most oppressive regime on Earth.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[lythander]

I agree that China is a large factor here, but I think (for no reason based in a thorough knowledge of Chinese thought or politics or anything like that) that they view Kim Jong Il as their own Saddam in a way -- Certainly they assisted his father, but I don't think they ever planned for dealing with his loose-cannon son. They are now faced with someone on their doorstep, with whom they have a very iffy relationship, who claims to have nukes. Imagine if Cuba had developed their own nukes early in the 60's. Not an appealing scenario!

I hope we can take the high economic and diplomatic road this time. China doesn't need another beach, nor would South Korea work as well as an island. Iraq has so exhausted our will to fight a war (outside of real self-defense -- if the Cannucks invade, we're up for it!) and much of our ability to do so, we may have little choice. Or maybe those draft rumors aren't. Take your choice.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[TopShelf]

"Significant" cooperation fell well short of the requirement for full cooperation, leaving plenty of room to doubt whether WMD's had been disposed of. That is exactly what Hussein intended, in order to intimidate others in the region from taking advantage of Iraqi weakness.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[_Sprocket_]

Nonsense. The reason Iraq was invaded was because they didn't have any WMD.

Iraq had WMDs when they invaded Kuwait. Yet that didn't stop the same forces that invaded Iraq now from attacking Iraqi forces in Kuwait and following them in to Iraq then.

Incidently... WMDs are a threat. And they will have an impact on any battlefield. However, the US military believes it can operate and be effective in a contaminated environment and trains to do so.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[lewi]

"Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded."

That's certainly a factor but I don't think that it's the only factor. NK doesn't have oil. NK doesn't provide us with any militarily strategic position since we are already in South Korea. NK doesn't have lunatic jihadists running around the Middle-East blowing themselves and others up. And lastly, it wasn't fundamental Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists or any religious fundamentalists from an Asian country that attacked the USA.

When we were attacked on 9/11, we didn't have major forces ready to launch a major strike in the Middle-East as we do now. Now, if we are attacked again, whichever country has the jihad terrorists better hand them over since there are large numbers of American troops within striking distance rather than a month away from establishing a presence and attacking.

In fact, Iran should be hoping that another 9/11 doesn't happen and that the terrorists aren't based in Iran. That would likely be enough of an excuse to attack from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I never believed the WMD thing because I figured that Saddam probably used up everything that we sold him back in the '80s. I also never thought that it was about oil. It's about military position and strength in the Middle-East.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[michaelggreer]

I can't think of any signs N. Korea is "unstable" or "in terminal decline". Even mass starvation can't dislodge those thugs. And though one may agree with the "never give in" approach theoretically, it is failing. Failing. Let's get realistic. Bush's foreign policy exists in a fantasy land.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[_Sprocket_]

He claimed he had no WMD (a claim that has since been proven true) and offered significant cooperation with international inspectors to prove it.

Maybe you missed the Duelfer Report that outlines a routine of uncooperative behavior with UN weapons inspectors. And it also describes a strategy to, amoung other things, attempt the removal of sanctions via meeting minimal levels of cooperation while still maintaining some question as to Iraq's true compliance for the sake of other percieved threats like Iran. In other words, bluff.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

If North Korea disaappeared in the 50s, then the military confrontation between china and US on the border will make China another North Korea.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, China is the reason that North Korea exists now. But US is also the reason. I believe the military confrontation between North Korea and US/SK makes the north go crazy and behave badly.

Look today's Vietnam. They had been through similar situation as Korea. The only difference is US lost in their civil war. Now, today they are repeating China's path. I would say, considering mild and non-aggressive culture in east Asia, they will naturally develop into a better and more open society even in communism concept. If you want to find someone to blame. US is the number one to blame since it is the first one to interfere. China is the second. However, China had an excuse for getting involved in this because they felt threatened since the war is so close to their border. Also, at that time US had supported the other party (now in Taiwan) during China's civil war.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[HiThere]

If we do that, they'll call in their outstanding debts, and the US dollar is SUNK!

We are dependant for the midling prosperity we currently have on China continuing to prop up the dollar. We have essentially NO leverage.

As it is, China is probably having serious second thoughts about tying up so much of it's wealth in loans to a country that is so ... reckless ... with it's economic policy.

This generation of China is no longer revolutionary or communist. It's Imperial. (And yes, a good emperor is careful with the welfare of his subjects. It makes them much more useful.)

P.S.: Don't take that too literally. The guys at the top are probably more like a corporate board of directors. But the government is structured like an imperium. And with today's good communications, you don't have these realatively independant satraps causing trouble.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reign in that little freak or we're going to find ourselves another country to make pretty much everything we use. There are plenty of candidates out there."

How much does the US owe china? In hundreds of billions of dollars, to save people typing zeroes.

Cutoff China and they might call in the debt - considering how much stuff is actually payed for, upping the repayments on the deficit even a little would probably make their income equal to what it is at present.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Duhavid]

A: Love the sig.

B: The Chinese are also pegging the yuan to the dollar, which is not helping the US dollar. It is keeping Chinese goods attractive to the US market. So, while they may be propping up the dollar, they are also hurting it.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[orichter]

I though about moderating this as a troll and being done with it, but I guess maybe I should respond instead. I'd have to agree that Bush is a pretty lousy President, but anyone who compares him to Hitler, or Stalin, or Kim Jong Il is simply an ignorant fool, and is disrespecting the Millions of people each of these petty dictators have killed. When George Bush's second term is up, and he pulls a military coup to install himself as a dictator for life, and then sets up death camps, then I'll have to agree with you, but until then, shut the fuck up you ignorant prick.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[The OPTiCIAN]

> he's their puppet nutbar and not ours

Neither. North Korea did well until the 1990s partly due to its success in playing the Russians and Chinese off against one another. Thus each country was inclined to give North Korea aid in a bidding war for loyalty. When the USSR dried up they lost most of their leverage, and the evolution of China away from idealogical motivations and into a weird capitalist state further reduced their attractiveness. It was Stalin who Kim Jong Il saught permission from to move against the South. From http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/dictators/kim-il -sung/ (not necessarily definitive, but I've read it in other places):
"""
In March 1949, Kim began to nag Joseph Stalin for permission to invade South Korea. "We believe that the situation makes it necessary and possible to liberate the whole country through military means," Kim pleaded. Stalin disagreed, believing that the North was incapable of prevailing against their adversary. In August and September the North Koreans nagged Stalin again. He still said no. In April 1950, Kim spent the entire month in Moscow lobbying for war. Finally, Stalin agreed. And on June 25, 1950 the Korean War began.
"""

Equally, it was China that got involved hoping to aid the North late in the war.

But North Korea is certainly not just a Chinese puppet.

Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded

[Fjandr]

My opinion simply differs from yours. I take the opposite position. You can say what you like. I'm free to ignore you, just as you're free to ignore me.

It's too bad people in the US live in a culture that is obsessed with controlling others, while individuals rarely exercise the same control over themselves that they would extend to others. Just look at the guards in the Zimbardo prison study.

All I have to say about Kim Jong

[ambienceman]

...is that he's pimp and a gangsta. Look at them glasses he dons. Look at his demeanor. "Bitch, if you don't step down, I'm gonna have to backhand slap you with some nukes. Fuck the peace talks! Y'all ain't representing the hood right"

I Smell BS. Kim Jong-Il BS

[Anonymous Coward]

A workforce whose last meal probably consisted of tree bark and grass aren't going to have the energy to produce nuclear weapons.

(But "What", you say - are you saying that a Communist dictator would actually LIE about something like this?)

Defensive purposes..

[trisight]

Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington.

Nukes aren't used for defensive.. they can only be used for offensive measures. I"ve never heard of someone using a nuke to shoot down a missle or to shoot down a plane. The only type of defensive measure that nukes afford the country that uses them are psychological. People don't want any nukes going off for fear of the planet itself and therefore try to get around those countries using it.

Re:Defensive purposes..

[orion41us]

they are defensive because they work like a deterrent...

How about a REAL foreign policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, this is stupid. A REAL foreign policy would do us better but I digress. Missle-missle defenses don't work. Lasers are probably our best defense.

Re:How about a REAL foreign policy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferably attached to frickin' sharks.

Regardless, they're perfectly safe...

[EvilCabbage]

Unless G.W gets a hard on for fake Nike shoes and cheap kung-fu movies, North Korea will continue to go about it's crazy-ass ways unhindered.

Thanks for all the fucking help down here George, glad to know we've got a poweful ally looking out for the real crackpots instead of just tracking down oil fields.

I've got news for you.

[polar red]

The US has them, France has them, Israel has them, the UK has them, Russia has them ... Need i go on ?
It's as if we were secure without another country having them. Americans tend to think they are the only country allowed having them. Living in a small country is sometimes scary : looking around and staring down into a weapon pointed at you, from all sides.

Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

Watch the far right go absolutely ape-shit on this one.

Note to any far-right-wingers reading this (by any odd chance): Please, PLEASE don't start a war with the North Koreans. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.

Sad thing is, he's right when he claims that they need the weapons as a defense against the US. Our current President thinks he's a cowboy, and treats every encounter with a nation that doesn't agree with us as a showdown in front of the OK Corral. He thinks he's the guy wearing the badge and they're the evil felon in all black... Well, it ain't that simple. North Korea might be evil, but the US is evil too. Just less evil (arguably) and evil in different ways.

North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.

American businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians. And have a whole boatload more power over the world at large.

The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Note to any far-right-wingers reading this..."

LMAO... Like extreme right wingers could read...

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

Oh, but they can. And many of them can even spell quite well. Some are even disturbingly witty and charismatic. See their hangout.

Re:Uh oh...

[spamfiltertest]

You are right; North Korea doesn't do those 'evil' things corporate America does. It may be because they don't have the resources, or because they wish to keep the power in the hands of a few.... however.... The BLACK and WHITE truth is that we have a choice to buy into the "evil" that is corporate America or not. North Koreans don't have a choice on their life, or life style.... we do.

Re:Uh oh...

[Korben Dallas]

The only ones going absolutely apeshit so far have been the far-left, as evidenced by your hyperbole, exaggerations, and flat-out lies in this very post... not to mention the gallons of spittle being sprayed in the rest of the comments.

But then, that's what you get when you replace rational thought with hyper-emotionalism.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

Americans don't have as much "choice" as they like to crow about.

Try:

• Never relying on a giant corporation for transportation. (Hint: You'd have to ride a bike, walk, or take public transportation. All the time.)
• Never relying on a giant corporation for food. (Hint: Even if you cook your own food, you're subsidizing Monsanto, etc.)
• Never relying on a giant corporation to access the Internet. (In some areas, this is impossible)

Americans most definitely have a post in their eyes (this is a Bible reference; Google it ;) ) on the "choice" matter...

Re:Uh oh...

[Eminence]

Yes, I'm going ape on this one. I'm going ape because each time I think of NK I imagine the life of those poor bastards who were born there and when I do this I almost cry.

You write about "massively fattening foods"? Do you have any idea what it means to compare that vide selection of cheap food available to everyone in the US with the situation of a North Korean with his 8 ounces of food rations? Would you say it in the face of a person who knows what hunger is how bad "massively fattening foods" are? You don't have any imagination? Any decency? Any measure? Any compassion? Are you so blinded by your ideology?

You write about "mindless TV"? How about a totally censored TV, with songs worshiping the Great Leader? How about spending hours and hours training to become part of a gymnastic parade during which you are a pixel in an image of the Beloved Great Leader?

When I see comments like yours I know where the opinion comes from that Americans are generally ignorant and stupid. I just can't believe that such a piece of BS can be described as "Insightful". Really, people, you should learn some about the world. It seems that ages of freedom made it impossible for you to even imagine life in the hell North Korea is. Good for you, but really, think, think! If you still can!

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

What's rational about declaring war?

And don't trot out those WWII arguments. Hitler was killing far and away more people, and faster, than anyone else. He was the most evil critter alive at the time, and so he got axed. However, nowadays, we're in a situation where there are a metric fuckton of "evil dictators" in power throughout the world (primarily in "third world" areas -- read: Africa, Asia, Latin America, parts of the Middle East), and we are attacking not necessarily the worst, but the ones of strategic importance to the Republican Party.

Re:Uh oh...

[argStyopa]

I think it's funny that the Far Left have no choice but to be utterly inconsistent on this issue.

We dealt with N Korea in *exactly* the way the left told us we SHOULD have dealt with Iraq: international consensus, no reversion to force, feeble sanctions, no saber rattling, diplomacy, and a wonderful 'ironclad' agreement with them during the Clinton years. = North Korea has a nuke. Success?

So the left either has to say if Bush was wrong in Iraq, then what is happening in Korea is acceptable.
OR, if Bush was wrong in Korea, then he was implicitly right in Iraq.

Or, they can just be blatant hypocrites and uselessly criticize everything (par for the course). It's not a problem, we don't mind taking the presidency (and the congress, and the governorships, etc. etc. ) in 2008....again.

You draw a neat moral equivalency between the US and North Korea. You do realize you (and perhaps your family...relatives...friends) would be 'disappeared' for making the equivalent statement in North Korea?
Yeah, George BUSH is teh debbil, right?

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most idiotic post I have read today.

You, moron, need to travel the world a little bit. You have zero idea how well you have it in the US.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

There are many, many countries out there with huge hunger problems-- some have far worse, I'd wager, than anything in North Korea.

You are upset by the situation in North Korea simply because they're "commies".

Why don't you focus some of that energy towards educating people about hunger in, say, Sub-Saharan Africa?

Re:Uh oh...

[Mike Hawk]

What's rational about declaring war?

This is so self-evident that you should be embarrassed you asked.

Re:Uh oh...

[Doug Dante]

merican businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians.

What the F*** are you talking about?

America doesn't run penal labor colonies

America doesn't lock you and your whole family up because of what your father did before you were born.

America doesn't kill people who try to escape.

Look, you can make all the jokes you want, but North Korea is an Orwellian human rights nightmare. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen in America or worldwide at the behest of her corporations, but we make an effort to police ourselves. We try to be the good guys, and in North Korea they'll pop a cap in your a** for just looking like you're thinking the wrong thing.

PS: Sometimes swearing is necessary in response to extreme stupidity.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

I never said we don't have it well.

I did say we lack "choice". I also did say that we are evil too, in our own way. And I will stand by both of those assertions.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, this guy clearly is a fool.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

*blink* I beg your pardon. Evidently you're such a war-hawk that you feel it's self-evident why everyone should be?

Please. I believe you're suffering from testosterone poisoning if you honestly feel that war is a rational (or admirable) activity. Kindly take some Androcur; I hear it's quite nice at drastically reducing one's testosterone levels.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

No saber rattling? I beg your pardon?

Kim Jong Il has every reason to claim that he needs nukes for protections against the US. That reason is that GWB is certainly not known for restraining himself from "saber rattling"...

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

we are attacking not necessarily the worst, but the ones of strategic importance to the Republican Party.

Wow...bad troll.

I didn't know fixing the Middle East's dictator problems was solely a Republican cause. I guess the Republican's should remember that over the next few decades so they can take the full credit for fixing that mess when it's all done.

Re:Uh oh...

[jac1962]

You know, there's a lot of good land left in America.

Why don't you buy yourself some in say, Eastern Oregon?

You can grow your own organic foods, you can build your own sod house to live in, and you can leave all the comforts and convienences of modern life behind

If your crops fail you can eat grass or tree bark like the North Koreans do.

It's your choice. You're free to make it. Nobody's stopping you.

Except yourself.

Re:Uh oh...

[Chibi]

North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.

North Korea however does have prison/concentration camps to deal with people deemed "unloyal" to the state. On 60 Minutes, there were reports of people being fed poisoned cabbage in captivity. These people were then studied as they died from the poison. There are many stories of people trying to escape to other countries, notably China. There are so many stories about the awful conditions that people live under, that it's almost impossible to imagine in this day and age.

So many people on Slashdot like to talk about how the US has become the government depicted in 1984, but you're just deluding yourselves. North Korea is a living, breathing 1984. They have government propaganda playing at the start and end of every day. They've almost deified their leader. People are oppressed, starving to death, and sent away to prison camps.

It always bothers me when people make extreme remarks. There are folks in the US who like to think that they are so enlightened, and they see how the US is becoming the worst place on Earth. That's far from the truth, and I feel that when people speak in these extreme terms, they are just making their own arguments weaker.

On a final note, the last living relative of Anne Frank was interviewed on 60 minutes. He allows governments the right to distribute her diary, based on a pretty minimal fee. He was approached by the North Korean government, and agreed to allow them to use the book. Now, you'd think, "hey, great. This government that's always accused to being isolationist is allowing it's people to learn more about history outside of it's country." Well, it turns out that the government used the book as another propaganda tool. They wanted to prepare North Korean children for what would happen to them if the Evil American Empire came to invade their country. Oh, wait, but that makes sense, though, since as everyone knows, George W. Bush is the second coming of Hitler!

/sarcasm

Re:Uh oh...

[Korben Dallas]

Do you even know how to have a conversation without resorting to ad hominem (that's Latin for a personal attack) when someone says something you don't like? And wtf does WWII have to do with what I said? That's called a strawman argument (where you make shit up and then attack that instead of the original argument).

Come back when you've calmed down and are able to talk about a subject without sneering, sniping, or salivating.

Re:Uh oh...

[deadweight]

I am evil. I downloaded warez once and also go 70 in the 65 zone. Kim Jong Il is a mass murderer of his own population. He is also evil. So we are both evil, just in different ways. Please move to North Korea and report back on if you like the "different evil' if you can before you starve.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

I pre-emptively mentioned WWII, since it seems that conservatives have a major WWII fetish, and that every time I complain about the war in Iraq someone says "Would you have objected to us getting involved in WWII too???"

I habitually note patterns-- patterns of behavior, patterns of events, and so on. I see life as one big regexp. And one pattern I've noticed is that virtually any time you protest a war, sooner or later someone on the right side of the aisle will ask if you would have protested WWII.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

Gotta love it. So instead of arguing that America should be dominated by lots of smaller, less evil businesses instead of a very few, very huge businesses... you say "if you don't like it, pull a Ted Kaczynski."

How about a position more nuanced than "put up or shut up"?

Modern conveniences are nice. Modern conveniences don't necessarily have to come from the teat of AOLTimeWarnerMSNBCDisneyMonsanto.

I'd be much happier to live in an America with no corporations worth more than a few million dollars.

Re:Uh oh...

[Korben Dallas]

Next time try to stick to things that have at least something to do with what's actually being discussed.

So you're a fan of pre-emptive action, eh? Heh.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

American corporations are evil. Real evil. Not just "70 in the 65 zone" evil.

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

Yes, pre-emptive conversation. Not pre-emptive "blowing people to smithereens with bombs".

Re:Uh oh...

[Korben Dallas]

So I was right - you don't know how to have a conversation.

Now, much as I enjoy goading an emo into hysterics, I've got a dwindling lunch break and better things to do. So if you feel like putting forth an argument that doesn't involve ad hominem, strawman (your "pre-emptive") attacks, or completely ignoring what someone is saying, I'll check back here later to see what you've got.

Ta!

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Stalin killed far more people than Hitler. But at the time, he was our ally so let's turn a blind eye to that, shall we?

Re:Uh oh...

[JessLeah]

I'm in a ranty mood.
I take out my frustrations by ranting.
Some other people take out their frustrations by shooting or bombing people.
The President of the United States takes out his frustrations by invading sovereign nations.
I prefer ranting.

Re:Uh oh...

[halber_mensch]

" The gap between harvests has become an annual occurrence in North Korea's four years of slow-motion famine. In the lean weeks to come, government mills will churn out a staple of the crisis -- edible roots, grasses, sea weed, corn stalks and the like often mixed with cereals and enzymes and cooked into noodles or buns. The substitutes are "basically a stomach filler" with little nutrition and eating them causes digestive problems especially for children and the elderly, Morton said.

Floods, drought and other natural disasters ruined North Korea's collective agriculture already crippled by mismanagement and the loss of crucial Soviet bloc trading partners. Without food and imported fuel, North Korea's centrally planned economy has largely broken down. Morton said the worst food shortages were believed to be occurring in the cold, land-scarce, heavily urbanized northeast."
-CNN, April 27 1999
source

But, instead of lifting the economic sanctions on North Korea that prohibited them from being able to purchase that Wide Selection of Cheap Food Available to Everyone, we told them to starve.

Re:Uh oh...

[Citizen of Earth]

Come on, don't be such a coward. I want you to proudly proclaim that North Korea is morally superior to the USA and that all western countries should strive to become North Korea. If you can't at least say this last thing, then it indicates that there is something wrong with your "North Korea doesn't, for instance" paragraph, or at least that it is incomplete.

North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing.

It's strange how sweatshop workers volunteer for grueling work environments. This is because their only alternative is to starve to death, just like anti-globalists want. Perhaps you should praise North Korea for skipping the middleman and starving its OWN citizens to death.

It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV

Why don't you just inform the people that they are being manipulated in this way and they don't actually want to eat fattening foods or watch mindless TV. I think you will find that these things match their own desires and people do them of their own free will. The average citizen likes mindless TV because they are stupid.

into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry.

I can agree with "mindless" and "fat", but the average person probably isn't all that "happy", and I wouldn't call them "cash cows". I think you overestimate the worth of the average citizen. I can agree that stupid people are too caught up in the culture of consumerism.

The US (specifically, its businesses

Indeed, businesses are so evil. If they would just go away, the citizens of America could starve to death just like North Koreans or sweatshop workers put out of work by their anti-globalist saviours. Hey, it would break the cycle of consumption and obesity.

The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.

Again, why let the US edge out North Korea. Based on your analysis, North Korea should be white and the US should be dark gray. Europe might be a medium gray.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not possible...how would you pay the taxes?

Re:Uh oh...

[jac1962]

Then don't buy anything from the big "evil" corporations.

And if you can convince your fellow Americans to do the same, they'll go out of business and be replaced by smaller corporations more to your liking

Really. It's that simple.

But don't think you have a right to force your choices on the rest of us.

You don't.

Societies that force choices on their citizens "for their own good" because a self-appointed ruling class "knows what's best" usually end up like North Korea - cold, starving, and blaming someone else for all their problems.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Great job parent. You were able to focus on one point and completely miss the point of the grandparent's post. You should be proud of yourself. If I had any modpoints, I'd mod you Troll.

Re:Uh oh...

[geirhe]

Yes, I'm going ape on this one. I'm going ape because each time I think of NK I imagine the life of those poor bastards who were born there and when I do this I almost cry.

I notice you have not mentioned Sudan - a country without any WMDs, but experiencing one of the biggest famines the world has ever known. 10000 people are dying in Darfur - every month.

Yes, people write about "massively fattening foods". On the ground used for delivering meat substitute to macdonalds so that western people can get their daily fat kick you could probably grow enough food to take the sting off the Darfur chrisis.

This does, however, not make your points invalid. You are perfectly correct. So was the guy that made you go apeshit. It is possible to have more than one bad thing going on in the world at any given time.

Yes, it _is_ possible for other countries to be run by idiots - even if the regime in NC is a bad one.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, dude, there's one major difference: Iraq was not a potential threat. At all. And the Bush administration knew that.

Re:Uh oh...

[PinchDuck]

As many right-wingers can read it as you want. And head your plea, even if they don't want to. See, they don't control the armed forces of the united states. Only President Bush does. And I doubt he reads slashdot. Furthermore, I really doubt that he checks out slashdot for advice on foreign policy.

Good luck, though. Maybe you could raise taxes and increase spending on social programs if you post on kuro5hin.

Re:Uh oh...

[norkakn]

some people would argue on the first point.

The point isn't that they do the same things, they don't. They do different things, also evil.

Most of the little streams around Kalamazoo have nothing living in them. (sometimes some crawdads can make it) and one needs to make sure that their pets don't get close because one doesn't have to drink much of it to die.

It's kinda evil to do that to the stream running through someones yard.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was killing far and away more people, and faster, than anyone else.

Except maybe Stalin...our ally.

Re:Uh oh...

[rsklnkv]

I gotta say that in some strange way, I agree with you both. America has more 'freedom' than NK. America has more fattening food than NK. America has less censorship than NK.
However.
I would venture to say that the opinion "Americans are generally ignorant and stupid" comes from a myriad of reasons, not because some people have had too much freedom or make off the cuff remarks about Bush. More likely, the concept that the US is in fact, an empire frightens people, especially those who have suffered at the hands of the US military. Empires breed hordes of stupid people. I see lots of education in the US, but not lots of knowledge. Big difference. The concept that we need to bomb this world into oblivion for the sake of freedom and safety is so sick and twisted I don't even know how to respond. People really try (and succeed in their own minds) to justify war. I find, however, that most of the time it comes full circle to one thing : Religion (who would Jesus bomb?).
Yes, NK has it bad. I don;t think anyone would agrue that. I cannot imagine what living there must be like. But then again, I wake up every day in America and realize that WE are Big Brother. There need not be speculation any longer. It's a reality. One important fact that gets overlooked in all these rants about how free the US is is that we have more people in prison that any other country in the world. You may have missed it, but I sure haven't. Our freedoms are being eroded. Blame it on other countries and terrorists (RRRUUUUUN!!!) if you want, but I'm here to tell you that this is misplaced blame. WE ARE TO BLAME. We let it happen every day. Paranoid? Perhaps. I've spent some time locked up, and that'll do it to ya. Keeps me on my toes.
All I know is, this country is just as 'evil' (whatever that means) as any other. The American way of life will seep into every other country in this world, for good or ill, whether they like it or not.
That is sooo not cool.

Re:Uh oh...

[deadweight]

Well, if you think being the absolute ruler of an entire nation and starving your population to death and some banal Enron type scam are the moral equivalent, then I guess we will just have to disagree. BTW, my brief read of the corpwatch site shows that "corporate evil" is most certainly not either an American invention nor an American monopoly.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

America doesn't run penal labor colonies

If you go to jail in North Korea you have to work. If you go to jail in the USA you get raped. I know which I prefer.

How many countries has North Korea invaded lately? The USA has invaded two countries in two years.

North Korea is an Orwellian human rights nightmare.

You've completely missed the point. The person you are replying to wasn't saying that North Korea is a happy fun place to live. He was saying that the USA also has severe problems of its own, so it's not a case of good versus evil.

Re:Uh oh...

[MBraynard]

Fantastico. Yet another example proving Ann Coulter was right. Liberals aren't just stupid, they are America hating traitors.

You must be so glad one of your own is being electing chairman of the DNC. And so am I.

Re:Uh oh...

[Welpa]

I wouldn't worry too much. American right-wing presidents are cowards; they learned their lesson the hard way on Vietnam. They may like to appear as cowboys, but the actual countries they invade are always defenceless; the main thing is to dupe the population into taking money away from social programs and pump them into the pockets of their buddies at Halliburton and co.

Bush knew well that Iraq had no WMDs, otherwise he would've never invaded. The people in his cabinet (Rumsfeld/Negroponte) are the same people that were around when Reagan had to save the United States from evil Libya and evil Nicaragua who were both *huge threats* to the US. Poor Reagan even had Libyan hitmen after him. And poor Bush senior had that evil Saddam trying to kill him.

The most unbelievable thing is that the media and the American public swallows all this and actually believes it; noone in the mainstream ever dares to ask questions.

Re:Uh oh...

[Kris Magnusson]

Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.

interestingly enough, the US government acted a little "crazy" and unstable during the cold war--it was part of US war strategy aimed at stabilizing the global political situation.

mcnamara and his think-tank guys implemented a doctrine that held that by creating the perception that the US govt was unstable, the soviet leadership would feel reticent to provoke them--the US response would simply be unpredictable. this meant the safest course of action would, of course, be not to provoke the US.

some would say that the net result of the US "acting crazy" policy was greater global stability. in fact, i think you're saying that, too.

..... kris

Re:Uh oh...

[JPelorat]

Weth mah nookth!?

-Mead

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to bite on this one. I don't totally agree with your vision. As someone else pointed out somewhere else, the things are not so black & white. In this case, you can only talk from the perspective of someone living in a western country, "watching" how things are in NK. Have you ever been in a communist country? Have you ever lived there? I do agree that the situation is precarious, and that almost everything is state controlled, but how different is it from the US, where from your very birth you are indoctrinized about how great the US is? What is happening in NK is no different from that. Real freedom does not exist, it is always a part of your environment, be it in US or in NK.

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The most unbelievable thing is that the media and the American public swallows all this and actually believes it; noone in the mainstream ever dares to ask questions."

Yeah, the "mainstream" questioned Reagan or Bush I/II's actions. The way you described it there, in such wide strokes, you'd think you're the only enlightened one in America, you and your frothing-at-the-mouth comrades.

Re:Uh oh...

[lewi]

"It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry."

I guess that I'll have to drop my dream of starting a restaurant and becoming a millionaire.

And the parent poster was modded insightful?

Try this for insightful: the US government doesn't sell the food to its' citizens and doesn't give everyone a TV and produce mindless sitcoms for everyone to watch.

It's called supply and demand - Americans want to eat fattening tasty foods and watch TV that is senseless on occassion.

By the way, WalMart is also not a government entity. Just because they're huge and BUY FROM, NOT OWN sweatshops does not mean that all American business does this.

America isn't perfect by any stretch and business can be evil. However, I can talk bad about the US president without going to a prison camp.

I'd suggest that you take a trip to North Korea and express your concerns about their evil ways to everyone that will listen.

After you get out of prison, if you don't die of disease first, write a book about it and tell us Americans just how evil we are - you might even become a millionaire by selling fat, dumb, Americans reading material.

Even better, maybe you could appear on talk shows promoting your book and get to be on the coveted TV. I for one have never actually seen what a person talking out of their *ss looks like and would probably watch the show.

Re:Uh oh...

[idsofmarch]

Ah yes, the Far Light, those freaks. I can't believe those people. Good thing WE are around to take the presidency and congress like some fat golden calf to parade around like the victorious manly-men we are. Face it, Bush and company have seriously mishandled the North Korean situation and Iraq, so that now we are in poor positions on both: Iraq continues to pin our military down, sucking both our men and material dry, as well as the treasury, while on the other end of Asia, nut-job Kim Il Jong has been able to build nukes. How is this good? How does this prove that the Republican party can engage the world at this point? The rest of the world is pissed at us with remarkably few exceptions, the Saudi wahhabi party is still spewing their vitrol and funding various Jihadist groups, Pakistan is protecting men like Khan, who sold Pakistanian nuclear technology to N. Korea, Iran, etc., and we are engaged in a close-quarters battle in a formerly-contained Islamic country that is just short of toppling over into chaos. Bush has mishandled each of this situations by failing to use all the very powerful tools at his disposal to the correct effects. You bring Clinton in, yep he had an agreement with N. Korea, and you'd think Bush to come up with something better than just letting the N. Koreans blow off the agreement and start churning out nukes. Stop playing partisan politics and consider, truthfully, whether Bush and company have had an acceptable success in either of these two situations. Iraq may come together, but I think it will be in spite of Bush, Haliburton, and Rumsfeld. Iraq will come together because of brave Iraqi policemen, because of women who showed the purple stains of their fingers, and not because of Bush, who will of course garner all the credit.

Re:Uh oh...

[Dumbush]

do you get his point about the world has more colors then just black and white, at all?

Re:Uh oh...

[HeghmoH]

The US is home to various bits of retail evil.

North Korea is home to one big wholesale evil operation.

There is a big difference between the two.

Re:Uh oh...

[norkakn]

well.. not really. Corperations are often larger than N Korea.
(from the CIA World Factbook)
GDP: purchasing power parity - $29.58 billion (2003 est.)
That's pretty tiny

Re:Uh oh...

[HeghmoH]

There are more measures of size in the world than money, you know.

When a US corporation does evil, tens of people die. In bad cases, hundreds. In the absolute worst case, thousands.

When NK does evil, millions of people die.

Money has nothing to do with it.

Re:Uh oh...

[Cee]

There are many, many countries out there with huge hunger problems-- some have far worse, I'd wager, than anything in North Korea.

Did you that one report estimated that two million people have died from starvation in North Korea since the 90's? Link Link

Re:Uh oh...

[norkakn]

Can you provide a cite? What have they done?

Some people blame a number of the current famines on corporations. (The Road to Hell is more about politics, but touches on it). But even without that, makeing a huge area a toxic waste dump hurts tons of people (E St Louis?), dumping toxins into wastewater, sending old computers to thialand, leaking out some toxic gas.... doing all those is pretty evil and even tho the last is usually an accident, swarming one's way out of paying is evil. How walmart and coke treats their workers is evil, how the garmet companies treat their workers is evil.

Re:Uh oh...

[HeghmoH]

Can you provide a cite? What have they done?

Millions were killed during the Korean War, which was a clear-cut case of aggression by the North, and at least some of those deaths can be reasonably blamed on them.

Millions are being killed by lack of food. http://gbgm-umc.org/asia-pacific/korea/brfsum2.htm l claims that between 900,000 and 2.4 million people had been killed during a three-year period, and that was as of 1998.

Some people blame a number of the current famines on corporations.

I don't understand how someone could say that. The famines are a combination of natural disaster and insane Soviet-style agriculture. The same kind of policies that killed millions in the USSR and China are killing millions in North Korea.

But even without that, makeing a huge area a toxic waste dump hurts tons of people (E St Louis?), dumping toxins into wastewater, sending old computers to thialand, leaking out some toxic gas.... doing all those is pretty evil and even tho the last is usually an accident, swarming one's way out of paying is evil. How walmart and coke treats their workers is evil, how the garmet companies treat their workers is evil.

Yes, but again, this is all retail-level evil. There is no organized oppression, no death camps or deliberate starvation, but "merely" tragic side effects of the pursuit of profit. Deliberately starving and killing millions is evil on a completely different scale.

Re:Uh oh...

[Eminence]

do you get his point about the world has more colors then just black and white, at all?

Do you get my point that situation in North Korea and the US are hardly the same shade of grey?

Re:Uh oh...

[norkakn]

by the logic on the first, the US is responsible for the deaths in it's wars. We usually don't do that. The US caused deaths in afganistan and iraq over the last 30 years probably exceed this (especially if we include famine and restrictions to medical care)

Beyond the style of agriculture, they are way over militarized, but not nearly as bad as say Israel. The reasons for the famines in NK, USSR and China are quite different, but that is a bit off topic. More to the point is that it is US/UN policy that prohibits NK from buying food on the open market or receiving food aid. If they were allowed to do so, fewer people would starve.

"es, but again, this is all retail-level evil."

okay, lets make up a philisophical world. In the US we press a button and a cookie pops out, while at the same time, crushing the skull of a baby in china that we never see. It's just an unfortionate side effect that makes the price of the cookies lower. In another country, they hack open the heads of babies to get the cookie inside (why there are cooking inside the babies' heads, I do not know). What you are contending is that there is a moral different between these two. I contend that they are morally equivelant.

The trolley problem talks about this, an intro of sorts is http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000414.html

Re:Uh oh...

[crabpeople]

"America doesn't run penal labor colonies"

sounds like someone doesnt have my job :(

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right. And he's not frothing.

Any smart mothafucka is wondering how a president can be impeached for some private sex act but one who makes a war killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians on an outright baseless lie doesn't? If this mainstream misses out on their health cover or gets poorer i'm fucking LMAO

Re:Uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... they lock you up instead without recourse to a lawyer, without any accusations and don't apply the geneva convention... land of the free in dead! Gtmo

Re:Uh oh...

[Korben Dallas]

Uh huh, so that would be a 'no' on your capacity for actual debate.

Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

pssst...the United States have weapons of mass destruction!

Thanks Ye Gaud?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this would be a great time to thank George W. for making the world a safer place. And then of course the there's the religious right, it wouldn't be very nice to forget them - thank ya all too. It's funny how the US right defines evil in one way and the rest of the world defines it as the US right...

By the way this was not mean to be a flame, it's just hard to say what I wanted to say without coming accross that way.

hindsight, 20/20 and all

[FinalCut]

well that was insightful. Or maybe we need to elect presidents who can see into the future since that is the only way anyone would have known how Iraq would turn out and that NK would do this.

When Bush first started his "crusade" he named three countries that he was going to deal with, you know, the axis of evil (Iran, Iraq, N. Korea). He has done what he planned all along with Iraq. He is preparing to do the same to Iran, and I'm sure N. Korea isn't far removed.

It is quite possible that N. Korea is seeing the writing on the wall finally and, as a defensive move, they are just claiming to have Nuclear Capabilities. They may not - but if you were President how willing would you be to call their bluff?

It's one thing to invade Iraq and piss people off. Its entirely different when you knowingly attack a country that is willing to start a Nuclear war.

The kicker, of course, will be that if we attack N. Korea and they do have Nukes - we will be blamed for the Nuclear devastation and not N. Korea even if they are the only ones to launch.

I wonder if Kim likes to play poker?

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[Black Parrot]

> Or maybe we need to elect presidents who can see into the future since that is the only way anyone would have known how Iraq would turn out and that NK would do this.

People who run propaganda through a critical filter when they hear it knew darn well that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and NK's progress on building nukes was well known to everyone.

Re:hindsight, 20/20 and all

[Ohreally_factor]

The kicker, of course, will be that if we attack N. Korea and they do have Nukes - we will be blamed for the Nuclear devastation and not N. Korea even if they are the only ones to launch.

Yeah, wouldn't that be ironic? Attacking someone, and then getting blamed for the consequences. Some people are just haters.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[deanj]

Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Clinton said it, Gore said it, Blix said it, Chirac said it, Blair said it. Stating otherwise is completely revisionist history.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[Black Parrot]

> Everyone thought Iraq had WMD. Clinton said it, Gore said it, Blix said it, Chirac said it, Blair said it. Stating otherwise is completely revisionist history.

Funny, *I* stated otherwise before the invasion started. And I came to that conclusion by following the news carefully. It was in-your-face obvious that Bush was just saying whatever he thought would get people on the pro-war bandwagon.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[sapped]

Clinton said it, Gore said it, Blix said it, Chirac said it, Blair said it. Stating otherwise is completely revisionist history.

Blix said it? Blix says it was "probable that the governments were conscious that they were exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support they would not otherwise have had."

this comes from this link

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[FinalCut]

Your probably right, N Korea probably does really have Nukes. When I was sent to SK in 1994 we believed they had them and they declared they were working on them.

But the truth is, we don't know if they do or not. It isn't as if they have advertised the fact like we used to in the Nevada desert. It is just as likely that they are taking a defensive posture to prevent future agression by the US. It isn't as if they haven't played the Nuke card before.

As for Iraq...
My "critical propaganda filter" led me to believe Saddam was hiding something in pre-war Iraq. His behavior was pretty damn shady in my opinion. I don't know what he was hiding , but he was trying to hide something - or at least lead people to believe he was.

I definately didn't "know darn well that Iraq didn't have any WMD" - how you knew they absolutely didn't is beyond me. You may have suspected they didn't - but KNEW - that seems unlikely. Just as NK actual progress on building nukes hasn't been well known by anyone. Again, people have suspected progress - but there is a big difference between suspecting and knowing.

Hence why we need a president who can actually see into the future. Then we actually will KNOW and not just suspect.

BTW: I haven't voted for Bush. However, nor do I envy his position of being the president after 9/11. That event had so many foriegn policy implications that I wouldn't wish the job of dealing with it on anyone.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[deanj]

The quote I was refering to was "Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."

That was in this article, along with all the other people that said Iraq had it.

He never said what happened to it, and Iraq never offered any proof it was destroyed.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[deanj]

I guess they probably should have hired you then.

Re: hindsight, 20/20 and all

[sapped]

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

kim reading too much groklaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to take the SCO tactics to another level?

Re:Not Funny, Just True

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking out Iraq showed how important it is to take out the enemy before they developed the capability of nuclear blackmail.

Should have taken the USA out in the 40s and 50s then eh?

Why is it that America is allowed to have nuclear weapons, and indeed be storing 110 of the fucking things in the UK when they previously stated it was 30, but other people aren't?

Maybe the North Korean leader is a bit nuts, but it isn't as if the US government really paints a picture of sanity and rationality with its actions in the recent past either. Maybe North Korea won't get invaded now, because they've got a deterrent, and that's the whole point. If they used them proactively, the rest of the world would turn the country into glass, but they can have them to stop a dangerous foreign power from attacking them.

That's the point of having a nuclear deterrant.

Hopefully one day North Korea will decide to actually provide food and electricity to its population, but at least the population will merely die of starvation rather than being killed by an invading force (what was it? 50k to 100k civilians killed in Iraq?) ...

Re:So duh...

[PizzaFace]

You're completely wrong.

What makes India and Pakistan negotiate is not their own nukes, but the other one's nukes.

"Coalition"?

[khasim]

If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.

The first Gulf War had a coalition.

Bush's war had England and a few other countries with token representation.

Like someone else said, if Missouri was a country, it would be the 3rd largest member of the "coalition".

I didn't see Poland pushing for an Iraq invasion before Bush started talking. There is no reason to believe any of those countries were in it because of the violations. But there is lots of evidence that Bush bought their cooperation with trade agreements, etc.

Re:"Coalition"?

[That's Unpossible!]

Feel free to ignore my point and focus on the semantics of a word I used. Here, I will rephrase my sentence to appease you:

"If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the United States and Britain would not have been willing to mount the war."

Re:"Coalition"?

[deanj]

Nice of you to belittle other countries efforts in Iraq.

And there's NO evidence that Bush "bought their cooperation". You made that up, or you're listening to people that made that up and believe it. You know how I know that? Because if it had happened, every freakin' paper the the country would have been blasting it all across the front pages. It's just a conspiracy theory.

There is however, a LOT of evidence that Saddam bought off the French, the UN (Kofi's son, for one) and many other countries with the "Oil for Food" scandal that's still being investigated.

Re:"Coalition"?

[robinjo]

Here's some info about Poland's motivations:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/ 19/in_poland_support_for_us_on_iraq_seen_as_unappr eciated/

Re:"Coalition"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Oil for Food" scandal

US companies and nationes deemed strategic interests (such as Jordan) were quite involved in the scandal. Or do you want to forget that conveniently?

Re:"Coalition"?

[purple_cobra]

Bush's war had England and a few other countries with token representation.
Almost correct: Bush's war had the support of Tony Blair and so, by inference, the British Government and Armed Forces. Very few British citizens initially supported the invasion and even fewer do so now. Spain were also involved in a similar capacity, something the deposed Spanish PM no-doubt now regrets bitterly...

Re:"Coalition"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to ignore my point and focus on the semantics of a word I used. Here, I will rephrase my sentence to appease you:

"If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the United States and Britain would not have been willing to mount the war."

Your point was retarded and obviously wrong. Be glad it was ingnored, dispshit.

Re:"Coalition"?

[d2_m_viant]

If you want to talk quantity, the coalition for this war included more countries than the first Gulf War. If you want to talk bodies, the United States supplied around 90% of the coalition soldiers for the Korean War. I don't hear people complaining about that... Just though I'd inform you of those key points.

It's Truman's fault

[ch-chuck]

for pulling Gen. MacArthur off the Korean war instead of letting him finish the job with more resources, at risk of War with China.

Re:It's Truman's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

At "risk" of war with China? The USA was at war with China. It was Chinese troops that pushed the USA/ROK forces back into the south. If anyone's fault, it was MacArthur's fault. China said that if American forces came within a certain distance of the Yalu river (IIRC 30km, not sure), they would intervene. Had the USA not let the capitulation of the North's forces go to its head and heeded that warning, South Korea would have been 90% of Korea and the North would have been an unviable rump state sandwiched between South Korea and China, and would have probably collapsed by now.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Re:It's Truman's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Read your history. The North invaded the South in a war of conquest. Granted, the North was bombed into the stone age but that is no more genocide than WWII was genocide against Germany.

I know what I'm talking about. I've been to Korea and been to the DMZ. Have you?

Re:It's Truman's fault

[Bluetick]

What does that make the Vietnam or US Civil War then? Wars of reunification or wars of conquest?

Re:It's Truman's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The geopolitical situation in Vietnam was pretty much the same thing as Korea. The only difference is that the US lost. War is not like love; it is not better to fight a war and lose than to never fight a war at all. Frankly I think that it would have been great if South Vietnam was still alive, and turned into a modern vibrant democracy like South Korea did. (I'm not trying to say that South Korea was and is perfect; it had a bumpy road to democracy but today it is very much a democracy)

From a strictly legalistic perspective, the Civil War was wrong. Most constitutional scholars believe that from a strictly legal point of view, the south had every right to secede. That said, I'm glad Lincoln did what he did. Slavery was a blight on the US and I'm glad it was purged from the US. The saddest part is that the Radical Republicans failed to succeed in their plans during the reconstruction. If they did, the legacy of slavery might have been finally purged by today.

Re:It's Truman's fault

[ThousandStars]

You do realize why MacArthur was pulled, right? His strategy for defeating the Chinese was to drop nuclear weapons up and down the coast until China stopped. I think removing MacArthur was the right thing to do.

If you're going to blame anyone, blame Clinton, who accepted the 1994 deal in which we gave NK resources to prop up their economy, in turn for them... keeping the nuclear material they already had! And us trusting them not to turn it into weapons! Brilliant!

Now, in the unlikely but still frighteningly plausible idea that we do have a war with NK, we have the pleasure of dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen, in addition to the gazillion pieces of artillery that will pound Seoul into dust.

Re:It's Truman's fault

[dcam]

Risk? WTF? It was a certainty! You do know that China was already fighting in the Korean War? Get a grip.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[B2382F29]

That is laughable, how do you PROVE the nonexistence of something? E.g., how would YOU prove that you have no drugs in your room if i asked you for proof?

In other news...

[mat catastrophe]

...South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, have been moved to an "undisclosed location."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the undisclosed location involves some cement blocks, a boat ride, and a close-up view of the ocean floor.

Sorry...

[cybrthng]

"Big Stick" foreign policy solves nothing.

N. Korea isn't stupid enough to attack the US, however they realize they have us by the neck in just the fear of what they posses and that in itself means so much more to them then the act of aggression.

So why is it you feel the US must be aggressive and continue it's hostility against nations simply based upon the ideal that the US can be the only "big stick" on the block?

Re:Sorry...

[ezavada]

So why is it you feel the US must be aggressive and continue it's hostility against nations simply based upon the ideal that the US can be the only "big stick" on the block?

Actually that's exactly the opposite of how I feel. What made you think otherwise?

It was said; you weren't listening

[Engineer-Poet]

I despise Bush as a hypocrite and cynical dissembler, but that was laid out well before the invasion:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

Before the invasion, everyone thought Saddam had active programs and stockpiles (European intelligence thought this too); Saddam apparently believed this, and it may have been Saddam's henchmen telling him what Saddam wanted to hear. We now know that Saddam's CBW stocks in Iraq were minimal (if he destroyed them, he did it without allowing weapons inspectors to verify that they were destroyed - stupid of him) but he retained a core of weapons scientists, including nuclear scientists, to restart his programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Re:It was said; you weren't listening

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, he had to threaten Iran with something to keep them from invading Iraq. But these threats didn't do well in washington. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place..

Re:It was said; you weren't listening

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush II was going into Iraq and WMD's had nothing to do with it. Indeed, the entire array of sanctions and their execution were designed by the US and Britain in such a way that Iraq could never adhere to them. This invasion was preordained and Clinton helped out just as much as Bush II.

The US genuinely fucked over the Iraqi people just as much (or more) than Saddam himself, indeed, when Saddam was gassing his own people, Rumsfeld was shaking his hand.

Re:It was said; you weren't listening

[daiakuma]

That's not Saddam's fault.

This is what Scott Ritter was saying in 1998:

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, I mean, the list is actually quite long over the years. But since November there-since November of 1997, I would say that there have been a half dozen or so inspections, which have been either delayed or postponed or canceled outright, due to pressure exerted on the executive chairman by the United States...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-de c98/ritter_8-31.html

That's right, it was the US, not Saddam, who was preventing the proper completion of the weapons inspection process.

The same thing happened again in 2003. It was Bush, not Saddam, who forced Hans Blix and Unscom to leave Iraq.

Re:It was said; you weren't listening

[Anonymous Coward]

If Saddam was in a bind, it was one of his own devising.

When he lost the Gulf War, he remained in power at the pleasure of the United Nations, with the specific condition that he had to get rid of his WMD's (with complete documentation of doing so), unconditionally comply with inspections, accept "no fly zone" restrictions, and stop supporting terrorists.

If doing all that made it tough for him to fend off his enemies, that's too damn bad. They were the conditions of his surrender, which he accepted at the time.

Dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you thought about a career teaching Ethnic Studies at a prmoinent Colorado school!?

The people are so poor there, and food so scarce there are reports that people have resorted to cannibalism. And there are worse things....

no, they got it right

[RelliK]

You see, North Korea has no oil, and therefore no way to pay for its "liberation".

Re: no, they got it right

[Black Parrot]

> You see, North Korea has no oil, and therefore no way to pay for its "liberation".

Heh. Remember back $200,000,000,000 ago, when the Administration was telling Congress that Iraq would pay for most of its liberation and reconstruction out of oil exports? Bet you haven't heard that one in a while.

Flamebait? Please mod this one up

[jabster]

this is hardly flamebait.

Unless slashdot is becoming a purely bush-bashing site.

-john

Re:Flamebait? Please mod this one up

[love2hateMS]

Slashdot has become a purely Bush-bashing site.

In general it's just a liberal, anti-American, diatribe-screeching socialist enclave of imbeciles who have forgotten the last 100 years of history.

Coddling and appeasement do not work when dealing with maniacal dictators and radical fundamentalist racists. For more information, see World War II.

Re:Flamebait? Please mod this one up

[Aceto3for5]

--Pushing up glasses-- "Well, I work with routers, so let me tell you about global policy. That is of course unless you wanna have a SERIOUS debate, like who shot first"

Softly, softly

[Dammital]

We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.

Seoul is 40 miles away from the DMZ, and has 10 million people. Rattling swords is a touchy business.

Re:Softly, softly

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case the "we" is spoken from the hypothetical point of view of North Korea.

You cannot "prove" a negative.

[khasim]

You may or may not remember that part of the UN resolution that stopped Gulf War I was not only that they end their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs, but that they also show PROOF that they had done so. Saddam never presented any such proof. Hence, Saddam didn't comply with the UN resoltuions in the first place.

Back to the basics, you cannot "prove" a negative.

thxbyebye

Re:You cannot "prove" a negative.

[Anonymous Coward]

They could have just given to the UN all of the material they used for said research.

thxkbyebye fucknut.

MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[interactive_civilian]

Yes, it is a deadly game of chicken, but it could work to keep a certain country from invading.

Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.

I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.

Why would he bother with Seoul? He's already got enough artillery to flatten the place in 5 minutes.

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[lucabrasi999]

Why would he bother with Seoul? He's already got enough artillery to flatten the place in 5 minutes.

Because the threat of flattening the place actually can be more powerful than if he actually did flatten the place.

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[mpe]

Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.

May not be Seoul or Tokyo, so much as somewhere any potential invader could assemble an army close to the border.
Similarly Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan and Iran would be mad not to be trying to get their hands on WMDs.

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[Citizen of Earth]

I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.

This seems like one of the more bizarre conclusions of a pacifism. It's okay if psychotic dictators get The Bomb just as long as democracy isn't imposed on anyone else. Presumably, you want the US to get rid of all its nuclear weapons so that it can be nuked into surrendering to North Korea.
--
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ...
-- George Orwell, Orwell's Notes on Nationalism (May 1945)

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[TheRaven64]

I personally disagree with imposing democracy on people. Freedom is important, but representative democracy does not always protect freedom. Of the systems that have been tried in practice, democracy usually takes longer to degenerate into totalitarianism than anything else. This does not mean it's good, just that it's less bad than the alternatives. The American system of government was designed with all sorts of checks and balances which have gradually been eroded over time (although it is still a relatively free nation). The ideal situation might be close to a dictatorship, with an annual vote over whether the dictator should be shot (probably a good deterrent to abuse of power). If history has shown anything, however, it is that any system of government is susceptible to corruption over a long enough period of time. The worshipping of democracy, rather than the freedoms democracy was designed to protect, that seems common in the west is not a healthy state of affairs.

That said, what is really needed is some kind of recovery mechanism. Invading a country and replacing its government is not usually a good solution, since it engenders a feeling of hostility within the population to the new regime, a regime they feel has been imposed from outside. Similarly, overthrowing the government from inside the country is not always possible.

As a British citizen, I am concerned by the gradual reduction of the powers of the House of Lords, and the increasing number of life peers (as opposed to hereditary ones). Hereditary peers tend to treat government has a hobby, and not something that greatly influences their own life, and so are (in general) more objective. While I am strongly against the idea of giving them any direct legislative power, their ability to veto legislation provided a good check against the possibility of a tyranny of the majority (something the American founding fathers also feared).

Hmm. This post seems a bit rambling. Hopefully some of it made sense.

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[Lord_Dweomer]

The real trouble comes when terrorists make a deal with North Korea saying "ok, tell the U.S. to get out of OUR country or you'll push the button."

Re:MAD is a pretty good way to deter invasion

[Inthewire]

Agreed.
Which he still can do with tubes and rockets.
Which cannot flatten Tokyo or Beijing or Washington.

This Policy is not a US invention

[Shivetya]

It has been common throughout history. The most notable European version was Germany twice going on romps through the countryside.

Yes I know its PC to blame America, but America didn't invent the concept of "Might makes Right".

Re:This Policy is not a US invention

[gbdc]

America did not invent it, but it's the only country which _actively_ practices it in this generation.

"us" is that the US ?

[Anonymous Coward]

please refer to your country by name when saying us ...

Most of us do not agree with your monkey ....

Re:"us" is that the US ?

[ezavada]

I was deliberately being vague, to emphasize the point that the most Americans will assume I'm taking the American government's point of view, whereas the exact same point of view would be quite reasonable for the North Koreans as well.

Most people didn't seem to read the post carefully. I hope that the "Insightful" modifiers were from people who did.

so does the US

[bogaboga]

Yes, so does the US. It also has these weapons.

Re:so does the US

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Of course it does, we invented them and ended WW2 with them.

Logical Progression

[Enrique1218]

With famine and a crumbling economic infastructure. Fielding a large army may become logistically impossible without unwavering aid from China. Times have change and China may not need or wish to sustain the regime. So, how to you stave off invasion by South Korea, US, and Japan, build a nuke or more pernicious say you have build a nuke. With proper disinformation campaign within your own government, foreign agents will never be able to pin point exactly they are or if they even exist making irresponsible for any nation to attack. It worked in Iraq (sort of), the disinformation campaign was so good that not even Sadamn was any the wiser. The reason it didn't prevent invasion was because it was instituted from the bottom up and it couldn't plausibly claim to have nuclear weapons.

Agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 Get Nuclear bombs
#2 Feed the military
#3 Feed the bureaucracy
#4 Feed the population

Unfortunately the leadership in North Korea gets to item four on the agenda.

not enough oil

[Anonymous Coward]

even the us-hawks can't gasp the consequences of having to "control" north korea.

where is cambodia anyways?

[jabster]

I remember being there. It's seared in my memory. I was delivering weapons to the KhmerRouge.

Grounded in Reality,
John K.

All our Base

[CrashPanic]

I can see it now.....
UN: What happen ?
South Korea: Somebody set up us the bomb.
South Korea: We get signal.
South Korea: What !
UN: Main screen turn on.
South Korea: It's You !!
North Korea: How are you gentlemen !!
North Korea: All your base are belong to us.
North Korea: You are on the way to destruction.
South Korea: What you say !!
North Korea: You have no chance to survive make your time.
North Korea: HA HA HA HA ....

US actions show nuclear weapons are a deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, they are the only thing that determines weather the US will fuck with your sovereignty and invade. If you want to stand tall with the big boys, you better get some nukes. If you want to save some soldiers, you can even bomb some civilians. America's actions speak louder than words. Our History proves the value of nukes and these up-and-coming nuclear powers are seeing our actions, not listening to our hollow hypocrisy.

Reality distortion field?

[TheConfusedOne]

Gee, I guess I misread Hans Blix's report where he said that Iraq was still in non-comliance with inspection requirements.

Or maybe you're talking about when Iraq kicked out inspectors back in '98?

Oh well, maybe we can just agree to ignore the facts in the quest for those +1 insightful mods.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your support of taking out the state of Israel and setting up a democracy there. Gotta enforce those UN resolutions...

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'Weapons Inspectors' that were kicked out in 98 were spooks, U.S. Spies under the pretext of the U.N. The U.S. even released the documents stating it, well, alluding to it. The same way the U.S. tapped the U.N.s phones right before they unilaterally acted outside of the U.N. They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on with the U.N. so the went without them.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Richard_at_work]

Iraq never 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in 1998, Clinton pulled them out. They were never asked to leave, they were never threatened, they were never forced out of the country.

Iraq may have been in non compliance with inspection requirements, but thats not to say that the UK/US invasion was legitimate or legal. There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council. Those who voted against military action in the security council based on the evidence presented were ultimately proved right - so far theres been nothing of any substance discovered.

Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did - but I see most people overlook this little matter. Face it, Iraqs invasion was Bushes way of tying up loose ends rather than anything legitimate and good. The arguement that 'Saddam was a bad man' doesnt hold up. Yes, its good hes gone, yes, he was evil. Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[intnsred]

Or maybe you're talking about when Iraq kicked out inspectors back in '98?

You're spouting propaganda.

Saddam Hussein never kicked the weapons inspectors out during the 1990s (even though since the US was spying on Iraq via the weapons inspectors -- confirmed by US Marine Scott Ritter and others -- he had the right to).

The weapons inspectors were ordered out of Iraq by Bill Clinton just before Clinton launched cruise missile strikes on Iraq.

As an aside, given what we know for certain now about Iraq's WMD programs, the entire history of US-Iraqi relations during the 1990s needs to be rewritten. The no-fly zones were illegal, the US-imposed UN sanctions were immoral, Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, and it was clearly the US which was the aggressor nation.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your insighful comment, Mr Moore.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[iwan-nl]

There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council.

I totally agree. In retrospect, the whole WMD thing was nothing but PR.

One thing always puzzled me though... If the US really wanted to find those WMDs, why didn't they? They could have planted some to save their face, right? I find it very hard to believe a "world power" like the US does not have the resources to do so.

Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.

A large part of the world (specially Arabs) already sees the US as a great threat to their freedom. Even many Americans see the current US government as a threat (DMCA enyone?). You don't have to be a dictator to violate peoples rights.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[cayenne8]

"Iraq may have been in non compliance with inspection requirements, but thats not to say that the UK/US invasion was legitimate or legal. There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council. Those who voted against military action in the security council based on the evidence presented were ultimately proved right - so far theres been nothing of any substance discovered."

I think it also might have to do with some VERY high up people in the UN, France and others making tons of illegal money off the "Oil for Food" fiasco...Saddam was paying them off, and they didn't want the gravy train to end, nor have it revealed what they were doing...

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Qzukk]

I think it also might have to do with some VERY high up people in the UN, France and others making tons of illegal money off the "Oil for Food" fiasco

This holds water, up til the point where documents were discovered proving both Clinton and Bush knew about the trading, and went so far as to condone it for Jordan, citing "national security" as the reason to allow it to continue.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Richard_at_work]

Whatever the ulterior motives, the REASON stated for voting against military action was ultimately proved correct.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[drinkypoo]

If the US really wanted to find those WMDs, why didn't they? They could have planted some to save their face, right? I find it very hard to believe a "world power" like the US does not have the resources to do so.

Bush is trying to build an empire. With the resources of the entire world brought to bear it would be easy enough to prove (at least in the long term) that we planted the evidence.

It seems odd you would bring up DMCA instead of U SAP AT RIOT. DMCA is pretty ridiculous but it's not the first thing on my mind until we shut down the patriot act and get the republicans that would like to overturn Roe v. Wade and pass constitutional amendments preventing certain people from getting married based on their sexual orientation the fuck out of the white house.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

so because someone else knew about it, that makes it completely okay to break the sanctions?

if the US gets shit for starting the war against UN ruling, why cant other countries take blame for over a decade of illegal trading and profiteering? (at the expense of all Iraqis, allowed Saddam to stay in power and live an uncomprehendable lifestyle). that fraud bankrolled the entire regime

Re:Reality distortion field?

[xsupergr0verx]

Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.

Reminds me of

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, they can, and they are. People in and around the UN are taking the heat as well. And the US is taking the heat for starting the war AND condoning the trading. Funny how it piles up like that.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying Hussein was justfied in invading Kuwait and threatening his other neighbors?

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Richard_at_work]

Incase you completely missed it, theres a UN investigation currently going on into the Oil for Food program that has so far been extremely critical of companies, individuals and officials that either bent or broke the rules. So, other countries are taking the blame for the Oil for Food programs short fallings. The sanctions were never designed to remove Saddam from power - thats the job of his subjugates.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many UN inspectors were also found to be spying for the US - gathering data that was probably used in the recent war.

Then inspector chief Richard Butler was outraged about this at the time.

The Iraqi govt had every reason to be non-cooperative with the inspectors - which was the reason they were pulled out.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

The oil company receiving the largest portion of the oil in the oil for food scheme was Chevron, fined by the US government over bribes to Iraqi port authorities in around 2002. Basically many companies were at it from a number of nations, sadly.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq never 'kicked out' the weapons inspectors in 1998, Clinton pulled them out. They were never asked to leave, they were never threatened, they were never forced out of the country.

False. Iraq kicked out the American and British inspectors (accused by Iraq of being 'CIA spies'), the rest were pulled out by Clinton. It is not much of an inspection if you can select who inspects you, and remove anyone whom you don't like.

Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did.

Blix is also quoted as wondering where are 8500 liters of anthrax, which Iraq had not accounted for. Interview from June 03'.

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Anonymous Coward]

> They could have planted some to save their face, right? I find it very hard to believe a "world power" like the US does not have the resources to do so.

And when said weapons are paraded before UNSCOM and IAEA and they discover the design of the things fairly shout "Made in the USA" ... we'd have some 'splaining to do?

Re:Reality distortion field?

[intnsred]

Are you saying Hussein was justfied in invading Kuwait and threatening his other neighbors?

No, I don't think Iraq was justified in invading the Kuwaiti dictatorship. Iraq did tell the US envoy April Glaspie that they solve their border problems with Kuwait and stop Kuwait's cross-border slant oil drilling, but that's no excuse or justification for invading.

As to Iraq threatening its other neighbors, what threats? Citations please.

The only supposed threat that comes to mind is the US lie that Iraq was massing troops on the Saudi border. That was exposed as a lie by commercial satellite photos. It was later revealed that the US presented fake satellite photos to Saudi Arabia's semi-literate dictator in order to get the green light to base US troops in Saudi Arabia (and then, of course, highly upsetting Islamic militants in Saudi Arabia).

Re:Reality distortion field?

[ralphclark]

That quotation is not quite accuarate. It should be as follows:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss in Soviet Russia, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Re:Reality distortion field?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Wouldnt they shout "Made in China"?

It's all about the arms market.

[khasim]

There is nothing to stop N.K. from selling nukes on the open market.

Capitalism RULES!

Now, any insane millionaire could buy one.

Re:It's all about the arms market.

[SlimFastForYou]

Capitalism RULES!

Litterally

Re:It's all about the arms market.

[SlimFastForYou]

Bleah, slashdot ate my post

Well he is from Mississippi

[Anonymous Coward]

So the political slant should be no surprise.
I'm not even going to touch the first assertion.

"government hostile to ours" ??

[RenHoek]

Hell, if _I_ was a country on the other side of the globe, just minding my own business, not invading any other countries (China->Tibet), not being a threat to the US (no ICBM's, cannot reach), not massmurdering my own people.

And then suddenly the US puts me on a black list (axis of 'evil'), I'm damn sure I'd be scrambling for nuclear weapons after seeing that shit with Iraq..

The US has no business 'exporting' democracy to other countries that are no threat to it, when it has so little to export in the first place (free speach zones).

Re:"government hostile to ours" ??

[b-baggins]

We're talking about North Korea. What country are you talking about?

Re:"government hostile to ours" ??

[YU Nicks NE Way]

You really ought to go read up on North Korea before you spout nonsense like that. The DPRK is, indeed, on the other side of the world from the United States (even Hawaii and the western tip of the Aleutian islands are pretty far removed from the Korean peninsula.) However, its government definitely is not "just minding [North Korea's] own business" and arguably is "mass-murdering [North Korea's] own people".

North Korea maintains a state of war with South Korea, a democratic nation with close economic and historical ties to the US. The terms for reducing the tension for this state of war are simple and straightforward: South Korea must submit to North Korean rule. The primary target of the North Korean military threat is the city of Seoul, 10 miles from the DMZ. That's hardly "minding [North Korea's] own business".

The North Korean government has consistently pursued a policy of starving its populace to create an atmosphere of crisis inside the country. This atmosphere is extended by public murder of North Koreans who criticize the "Dear Leader" or his policies. Meanwhile, members of the North Korean armed forces and the North Korean elites eat well -- the world's largest purchaser of top-grade Cognac is Kim Jong-Il. I have always held that government organized starvation is mass murder.

The DPRK truly is inimical to western ideals as ideals. As a strong believer that those western ideals (separation of church and state, free speech, freedom of association, etc.) really are good things, I, for one, have no problem terming it an evil government.

Re:"government hostile to ours" ??

[RenHoek]

Even so, North Korea is not threatening the US.

While I too am OK with getting rid of 'evil' governments, I would like to see diplomatic solutions, and cannot see any reason why the US should be involved. If this is anybody's problem, it's South Korea's, and I'm sure they can get protection from the UN if needed.

My point is, that US's interference is escalating the whole situation. Even I can understand NK's reasoning when being threatened like that by the US. Can you blame them for going for nuclear weapons?

Re:"government hostile to ours" ??

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Under the treaty which ended the Second World War, we formally assumed responsibility for the defense of Japan and (the area later known as) South Korea. We are bound to treat an attack on either of them as if it were an attack on United States territory.

Bottom line, if it's South Korea's problem, then it's ours, too.

Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[swb]

No state rogue or otherwise will now believe that complying with UN resolutions or appeasing a more powerful enemy will prevent attack.

Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them.

I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.

They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..

Furthermore these states (with the possible exception of North Korea) are rational actors and realize that the use of any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies would result in a nucleare retaliation that would end their governments and quite possibly close the book on their nations.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[dago]

"They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg."

The same North Korea that let hundred of thousands if not millions die in starvation ?...

I vote for "they don't give a sh*t" (oh, and btw, look at the distance between Seoul and NK).

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Twanfox]

You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg

I'm reminded of the USSR's tactic in one of the World Wars (probably WW2, but I'm no historian). Germany invaded, and the Soviets withdrew, burning the land behind them. They kept up that retreat until the German front line was so stretched out, so resource poor (cannot harvest resources from the countryside you take if it's dead), and so demoralized that the Soviets could switch the run and mow over them. I know this tactic has been given a name, but I don't know what it is.

Thing is, even having 'low yield' nuclear weapons can be a deterrant. If you bomb your outlying areas (where invading troops would have to come through) or whether you disassemble and FedEx your parts to another location to be reassembled in, say, the US and detonated in some city here, simple potential for them to be used may make people think twice. The only time when I can see it would not be a deterrant is if the leaders of the invading country felt that they could (or had) neutralize(d) all of the weapons.

I mean, seriously. If the US were to invade a country that couldn't reach the continental US, and wound up detonating the weapons on the borders of their own country, do you think the rest of the world would look favorably on the US if they went ahead with it anyways?

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to using weapons on your own homeland. How many weapons did the USA and Russia test on their own homelands?

Not to mention that in WWII, countires would also bomb their own city if it was occupied by enemy forces.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Not to mention that in WWII, countires would also bomb their own city if it was occupied by enemy forces.

There is one hell of a difference between bombing and nuking. Bombing, you just rebuild. Nuking, you abandon the place afterwards for a long time. Or die.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[eboot]

Scorched earth.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world didn't look favorably on us when we invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, and regrettably, they still haven't figured out what they're going to do to stop us.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.

North Korea most likely has delivery mechanisms that can conceivably reach the U.S. Iran probably does not, but they can reach plenty of other countries that can. Assuming Iran puts together or buys a few nukes and couples them with their existing missiles they can then make a press statement, "if we are invaded by U.S. or U.N. forces we will fire nuclear missiles at China, Europe, and Israel. " That would put a lot of pressure on the U.S. to not invade, much more so than pretty much anything short of threatening to fire nukes at the U.S. itself. It is sort of a mini nuclear assured destruction and could easily spark another world war.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[acidrain69]

It's pronounced "nuk-u-lar". What, are you in the reality based community or something?

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[salesgeek]

do you think the rest of the world would look favorably on the US if they went ahead with it anyways?

What if the alternative was the invasion of say, South Korea?

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Idarubicin]

I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.

Really? The U.S. would be okay with nuclear weapons being detonated in Seoul or Tokyo? Or, for that matter, delivered by container ship to San Francisco harbor? Delivering a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon against a nonmilitary target is pretty straightforward--it's only slightly more difficult than calling FedEx, in most cases.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them."

Did you just compare Microsoft to the likes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea? What a fucking idiot.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[swb]

The third-party strike makes some strategic sense, but it presumes that the third party isn't willing and able to respond in kind.

Tehran would be a finely-glazed parking lot five minutes after even threatening the Israelis with a nuclear strike. It's taking serious diplomatic pressure from the US to keep the Israelis from hitting Iranian facilities *right now*.

I'm also willing to believe that the Chinese would also nuke first and ask questions later, and despite their rhetoric, the French and the British wouldn't take kindly to being targeted, either. You don't just threaten to nuke somebody; even if they agree with your position, you end up risking a retalition simply because the threatened country's internal political situation demands it.

Even the North Koreans have to understand that the nuclear threat doesn't do much for them but greatly increase the likelihood that Kim's dynasty and much of the population will be simply vaporized.

The Iranians are just too smart to pull a stunt like that.

I firmly believe that any "rogue" state threatening nuclear strikes on the US will result in DEFCON-2 and back-channel communications to all major diplomatic contacts that the United States will respond with significant nuclear retaliation to any nuclear strike, and that "...the rest of our nuclear arsenal remains at its fullest readiness." -- a not so subtle reminder that anyone getting in our way should consider whether or not they're willing to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Tehran would be a finely-glazed parking lot five minutes after even threatening the Israelis with a nuclear strike.

Bullshit. You are dead wrong. Israel would not fire on any country that would destroy them in retaliation. They may be hard-nosed, but they are not stupid. The same goes for China. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. made it perfectly clear to one another that any invasion would be met with nukes. For some reason neither immediately fired nukes at each other. Maybe it is because the countries were not run by suicidal morons. Neither is China or Britain or Israel.

a not so subtle reminder that anyone getting in our way should consider whether or not they're willing to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

And that is what it is all about. Do you really think Iran or N. Korea would not prefer that everyone on the planet dies, rather than their country being conquered? N. Korea is questionable. Iran is not. They already fear that we are trying to destroy their religion by taking over each country in succession, and they may well be right. They hate what the U.S. has done, fear what the U.S. might do, and would more than likely be happy to take the rest of the world with them if we try to conquer them. Their religion and politics more or less demand it. Moreover, Iranian leaders are not stupid. They know that the U.S., Britain, and China have way too much to lose. None of them will risk starting a nuclear war.

Like it or not, the possession of nukes is the best defense against invasion by the U.S. and a lot of countries feel they need that, given the imperialism of the U.S. in the last decade. Iraq was one big demonstration of what happens if you don't have nukes.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Ozwald]

If there's anything that the Sept 11 attacks taugh the U.S. is that anything can be a weapon. From nail clippers being knives to airplanes being cruise missiles.

For example, the U.S. 2 biggest cities are near ocean and a nuclear bomb can fit in a small yaught. Ofcourse knowing this you must realize why Americans are so high strung.

Not that this is news. How many times has Hollywood hypothisized this? Maybe that's why dumbass in N.Korea likes American movies so much.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Gauchito]

In North Korea's case, though, they can be defensive, since the political, economic, and cultural capital of the South is but an artillery shell throw's away. Japan is also within North Korean missile range, as they proved with that launch that flew over Japan and landed in the Pacific. It's defensive like a bank robber taking a hostage and using them as a human shield kind of defensive.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[swb]

Bullshit. You are dead wrong. Israel would not fire on any country that would destroy them in retaliation.

Which is why in 1978, at the height of the cold war, Arab Nationalism and Hussein's military power, the Israelis unilaterally bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction.

The Israelis don't wait for permission, and the Iranians wouldn't be able to fire back -- Israel has top of the line missles and guidance systems, decades of nuclear weapons experience and levels of targeting intelligence that the US only dreams about. Iran would be finished; they lack the sophistication in command and control systems and depth of offensive capability to take a first strike and hit back. On a megaton-for-megaton basis, the *Israelis* can hit the Iranians with more effect than the US can.

And that is what it is all about. Do you really think Iran or N. Korea would not prefer that everyone on the planet dies, rather than their country being conquered?

Mass suicide isn't their dream, it's furthering the 1000 year Kim dynasty. The Iranians are just too rational and also have some questionable internal loyalties among pretty much everyone under the age of 35. It's one thing to get them to go along with Hezbollah's activities in Lebanon; that's just good regional gamesmanship -- getting them to participate in something that could end Persian culture as we know it is quite another.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Deliveranc3]

They don't have ships and pretty women to bribe U.S. costal forces? I'm sorry those guys "resort" (implied refrence has to do with compromising personal sexuality, has no implications for actually homosexual individuals) to homosexuality.

They are probably already in place, and since you'll never know who detonated the only thing stopping people from doing so is the hope that other people being alive may improve your quality of life.

Not something that American's generally believe, but perhaps they will have to start.

People threatening and stealing seem like a pretty good target for violence without the possibility of retaliation.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Which is why in 1978, at the height of the cold war, Arab Nationalism and Hussein's military power, the Israelis unilaterally bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction.

Yes they did, but as we mentioned before, the Iraqi's did not have a nuclear missile as a deterrent. If they did, the Israelis would likely not have risked it. You seem to be missing the point. The Israelis could nuke or carpet bomb Iran, but they are not going to risk the annihilation of every person in their country to do so.

The Iranians are just too rational and also have some questionable internal loyalties among pretty much everyone under the age of 35. It's one thing to get them to go along with Hezbollah's activities in Lebanon; that's just good regional gamesmanship -- getting them to participate in something that could end Persian culture as we know it is quite another.

And you think the majority of the people will have any say in it? Think of it this way, suppose Italy had nukes. Now suppose Islam took off, and became the most popular religion in the world. Now suppose a coalition of Iran, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, invaded and took over Greece and France, all the while spewing rhetoric about how dangerous all those christian fanatics were. What if it was well known that most of the people in those countries thought christianity was evil. What if those countries then made a big deal about the possibility of invading Italy so that they would not be a threat to freedom.

Do you see where I am going with this? Many Iranians feel that their existence, way of life, and religion are under attack. They could easily be driven to feel desperate enough to use nukes as a threat, and from there, who knows. I don't think many Iranians would object to having nuclear missiles as a deterrent against invasion. Certainly not the ones in power right now.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Twanfox]

The whole point of my statement was that the US knows that a nation has (or is rumored to have) nuclear weaponry. Even if the delivery system is inadequate to hit the continental US, these weapons can still be detonated and their 'spray' (fallout pattern) may well encompass other nations. However, the country is content to sit back and be left alone, it's just that we, the US, feel that noone but us should have nukes (apparently). So we go in there and try to invade, all in the name of 'disarmament'. They set off their weapons, and while the US didn't directly set them off, the US was the antagonist that broke the peace (such as it was).

If North Korea decided to level South Korea, then the international community would very likely support any action by any of the member nations (including the US) to reestablish the boundries. At the point at which such weapons are used, first, and without other provocation (ie: they were not used in defense), the nation that uses them is a threat to the safety of other nations and must be dealt with. It isn't until that point that any other nation has any right what-so-ever to invade, no matter what our feelings are on a nation like North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons.

The way I see it, the US just wants to remain the Big Man on the Block, the only ones "authorized" to have 'weapons of mass destruction' just because we had them first. Frankly, in that reguard, the US can stuff it if they don't like being equals on an international basis.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[ralphclark]

"Scorched earth", AFAIK, usually refers to an invading force's destruction of the enemy's land, not their own.

The Romans had an interesting variation. After the siege of Carthage, they enslaved all the survivors *and* poured salt on the fields to ensure no crops would grow there. That was the end of Carthage.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[ralphclark]

Troll.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[temojen]

They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..

You can, however, nuke a carrier battle group and a few nearby (but hostile to you) airfields, thus preventing your distant neighbours from moving forces into a position to invade, and destroying or cutting off any that are already there..

There's a reason why small yeild atomic bombs are called tactical nuclear weapons.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[temojen]

Ummm... Hiroshima was rebuilt by 1949, and has a population of over 1 million today.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[salesgeek]

The way I see it, the US just wants to remain the Big Man on the Block, the only ones "authorized" to have 'weapons of mass destruction' just because we had them first. Frankly, in that reguard, the US can stuff it if they don't like being equals on an international basis.

The issue is not a DPRK nuke attack on S. Korea. The issue is an invasion of S. Korea under threat of nuclear attack, which would preven S. Korea from fully defending itself.

The US's position is anywhere near as simple as what you make out. We actually like equals because most forms of war are flat out of the question. The only question is trade or not trade. We like trade.

Getting nukes doesn not make you an equal to the US. It does raise the stakes on everything your nation does. Having nuclear weapons does not help in any way N. Korea other than protecting the current brutal regime:

* Sanctions will get worse.

* The US would respond with massive nuclear retaliation should N. Korea attempt to use it's nukes or mobilizes its forces to attack S. Korea.

* The risk of a nuclear escallation is very high if N. Korea continues it's erratic behavior. Should there be an escallation, S. Korea would become an island instead of a peninsula.

The losers in all of this remain the same: the people of North Korea.

Re:Nukes a sketchy deterrent

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

fwiw, I have never heard the term 'scorched earth' used in the way you describe.
The Russians used this tactic twice, against Napoleon's armies and against Hitler's.

As for the Romans, subtract the Holocaust from the Nazis' behaviour in WW2 and you get pretty close to how the Romans behaved. There were several instances of mass-suicides by the defenders of settlements when they could no longer hold out against the Romans.

The Mongols were probably even worse than the Romans, they routinely exterminated the (male) population of cities which did not immediately capitulate.

They had better have proof...

[penguinoid]

that they actually *do* have their nuke(s). Because if they don't, we just might decide to invade them because they have WMD. On the other hand, if they can prove that they have nukes, we are going to be a lot more diplomatic about all this.

Also, what does Communist China have to say about all of this? Seeing as North Korea used to be their bitch.

Funny

[protomala]

It's real fun all this, because you see, Unidet States says that they have "nukulear" weapons to avoid other nations attacking them (well, that's today because when they first started creating this kind of weapon they just wanted to nuke'em all), and now North Korea is doing the same. You know the old saying: Do as I say, don't do as I do.

Not news, and they don't have nukes to deter USA

[Anonymous Coward]

They've got nukes because their leader(s) are hell bent on conquering South Korea; and would probably use them ASAP if it were not for the US's presence in the South. This is the same North Korea that was caught digging invasion tunnels underneath the DMZ, mind you.

The whole nation is based on worship of "Dear Leader" and a cooked-up collective fear of the entire world conspiring against them to enslave them. The poor people there are brainwashed.

Tactical Nukes

[PacketScan]

Find there holding facalitites
AND BE DAMN SURE
Then Nuke it..

Re:Tactical Nukes

[vertinox]

You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces.

So you've never heard of low yield tactical nukes? Very interesting concept considering both the US and Russia did tests to see if it was feasible to set of nukes in close range of their own troops. (Ever see those old films of the US Troopers in the trenches watching the bomb go off?)

Secondly, Russia did actually do work on a "doomsday" weapons much to the chagrins of Dr. Strangelove fans. The 100-megaton bomb was at least said to have been created by Khrushchev himself, but they never really figured out a good way to deploy it since it would require an extremely large aircraft that didn't exist at the time. That and it was never tested because of the extreme reaction to the global environment. It was estimated that it would have created a 7 or 8km fireball in itself (much less the blast).

Now if you were a smart Rogue nation that was in range of the North Pole I wonder what would happen if you detonated a high yield nuke on the polar Ice cap.

Re:Tactical Nukes

[molo]

They did make it.. but they weakened it down to 50 megatons to test it. The 100 megaton version would have made too much fallout. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

-molo

while i dont want to see war

[AviLazar]

And while I think North Korea has some ethical issues (by our standards at least), good for them for sticking up for themselves. The less nuclear bombs the better, but we gotta look at it from their perspective. Russia (and all of the countries that spawned from the former Soviet Union), USA, probably Israel and the UK, and I am sure there are more all have nukes. So N. Korea is just trying to protect itself and in their opinion the biggest aggressor is George W and those vile Westerners who elected him into office for the second time...

So hmm..."go N. Korea"? (I feel unpure).

Re:while i dont want to see war

[pauldy]

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever read. You have to be quite ignorant on the subject of North Korea not to know this has nothing to do with "sticking up for themselves" and everything to do with world extortion.

Re:while i dont want to see war

[AviLazar]

enlighten me.

Re:while i dont want to see war

[pauldy]

Enlighten you to what. The fact you know absolutely nothing about North Korean diplomacy. I think you illustrated that quite well if your wanting me to fill you in on the past 60 or so years of history that is the stuff books are made of go read one.

Here is the jest of the current situation. North Korea has used the premise of nuclear weapons as the basis for extorting money from various governments around the world to support its current isolationist infrastructure that is so poorly managed it has been failing rapidly ever since song died around 94-95. They have discovered an easy way to rally the support of the people against a common enemy to help maintain popularity of chong-il it has worked before but the only way to keep it moving it to continually escalate the situation until they get their way.

President Bush rightly named North Korea in the axis of evil because of their past practices of extortion. Now 3 years later a country as poor as North Korea has a working nuclear weapons program? I'm 95% sure it is and always has been a bluff of the North Koreans to help support their struggling isolationist economy. Given their historical interactions and the state of their economy it is the only explanation that makes sense.

For many the fact that we have a president that spends more time on foreign affairs than marital ones clouds their judgment of his character and forces them to consistently side with the enemies of the United States. This is why the media tends to focus on various aspects of the issue that aren't exactly flattering, instead of taking the time to research stories, they find an emotional angle that sells and proceed to build stories around that and as we have seen in the past they can be wrong even though they will never admit to it.

Re:Not news, and they don't have nukes to deter US

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, did you hear all that on Fox news?

Oh yeah, blame Bush

[TheConfusedOne]

Let's see, we already had direct negotiations with North Korea over nuclear proliferation.

Turns out that after agreeing to everything and getting their huge bribes (errr, international aid) they still went ahead and built the nukes.

You know there's supposed to be something used besides a carrot to make a carrot work.

Right now, the ONLY way to break the dead-lock with North Korea is to get China involved. China is the single largest supplier of aid to North Korea. If they agree to clamp down then something can be done, otherwise we're just sending more bribe money to a liar and a cheat.

Re:Oh yeah, blame Bush

[Enoch Root]

Actually, North Korea turned off the nuclear power plant monitors after the famous 'Axis of Evil' speech by Bush, and in direct relation to the threat they perceived to Irak, knowing real well they were next. In other words, they were doing fine until they felt a threat coming from the US, whose President named them in a list of 3 countries deemed as 'Evil'.

Since then, the US doesn't want to get involved in one-on-one talks, not because they need China's leverage (they want Japan and SK to be involved too, remember) but because they can't afford one-on-one talks to go sour and force the US into a conflict. By having a multilateral talk, the US is ensuring that North Korea is perceived as a 'Regional' problem, and can hope that an eventual conflict can erupt between North Korea and all talk partners, not just between NK and the US.

In other words, it's not so much about NK lying and the US needing China to help; it's more about the US provoking a paranoid, money-hungry dictatorship, and then refusing to face them one-on-one because they are busy elswhere on the planet.

The US can solve the NK nuclear crisis. In order to do so, they need to appease NK with promises that 1) will contradict their 'dialectic of war' which they currently need to justify their actions in the Middle East, and 2) give every other dictatorship afraid of US invasion a clear way to hold the US at bay.

Re:Oh yeah, blame Bush

[meburke]

You bring up a good point: We already tried to negotiate with them and it resulted in an appearance of "bad faith" on the part of North Korea.

Occidentals seem to make the mistake of believeing that Asian cultures conduct business according to the same value system that we do. I read a great book, "The Asian Mind Game", by Chin-Ning Chu, and it changed my perception of Asian negotiating strategy. The techniques of Asian negotiation are clearly explained in this book, and IMO if Christopher Warren had read this book before going to China he would have achieved vastly different results.

Deceit and misdirection are fundamental to Asian negotiations, and "the end justifies the means" is not considered a moral weakness as it is in Western Christian-dominated societies. The fact that the foolish Westerners were gullible enough to give aid without enforceable agreements is probably considered a major victory in N. Korean political circles. It would be an application of misdirection according to Sun Tzu's "Art of War".

Re:Oh yeah, blame Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

liar and a cheat? I thought you respected liars and cheats, after all your president is one.

Re:Oh yeah, blame Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahaha .... i wanna see the us try and scare China...
China is the only country probably right now which the US are not going to threaten. China is on its way to becoming a super power. anyway .. who cares

Capitalism, think "nukes for sale".

[khasim]

who cares, if they decide to do something bad then they'll get smashed to smithereens, but probability wise i bet they just have them to threaten and scare big people like the u.s. who likes to lurch over them and poke them in the buttocks.

By "something bad" I'm going to guess you mean "sell a nuke to a terrorist organization who then puts it on a ship and sails it into New York's harbour and detonates it wiping out millions of US citizens".

Is that what you meant?

I can see how some people might find that "annoy[ing]".

Re:Capitalism, think "nukes for sale".

[ActionAL]

yes that's what happened to iraq even though their arsenal was pathetic.

Paid by Iran to divert attention

[mi]

Both regimes need to be crushed -- through sanctions or military actions or both.

The sooner the better.

"won't negotiate" is the wrong phrase

[Ohreally_factor]

You're forgetting one thing. N. Korea does want to negotiate directly with the US. It was Bush that cut off the direct negotiations in order to play "hard ball" with N. Korea. Bush insists that negotiations must include other countries in the region.

Re:"won't negotiate" is the wrong phrase

[ezavada]

My point exactly. The Bush Administration claims North Korea won't negotiate with them, and the North Korean's can say the same about the Bush Administration.

Re:"won't negotiate" is the wrong phrase

[Ohreally_factor]

Heh heh. Maybe they could compromise and have four way talks.

Re:"won't negotiate" is the wrong phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is the _coolest_ shit I have EVER seen, and I have seen a lot.

Uh, no

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not news that North Korea is part of the nuclear club, but it's big news that they're talking about it in such an inflammatory way.

Do you think Israel is a nuclear power? Do they talk about it this way, or at all, for that matter?

Expecting international politics to be simple is asking to be confused.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[daem0n1x]

I don't know where you get your information from, you should probably stop watching Fox News and get back in the real world. The UN inspectors repeatedly stated that Iraq was clean of WMDs. I belive this proves it, no?
Of course, it was useless. Bush and Co. were so determinate to go to war that they couldn't see the truth if it bit them in the ass.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

He believes God will magic everything ok, and that he should actively pursue an end of days scenerio so he can speed up The Rapture. Sadly, he has Santa and Jesus confused.

That is stupid. It is very very stupid. It is the concious choice to deny the world as God would have it, and currently keeps it. It is the improbable hubris of super-villians. Which is why I seriously think he should have considered replacing Rocky Squirrle with at least one five yearold.

This North Korea is the true seed of the Bush administration. The harvest will be nuclear proliferation throughout asia. And it's all his fault because he surrounded himself with idiots, first amoung them Condelezza Rice. That a person with her position and credentials can know so little about Asia is a testiment to the all-powerful nature of the social network.

the world is ready for another nuclear demo...

[Anonymous Coward]

to remind them about the horrific power involved, and to make everyone a bit humble; perhaps now would be better than 10 years from now

How can we not know already?

[seven of five]

Can they know if they have a bomb without doing any testing?
Can they do any testing without setting every nuke detector off in that part of the world?
I didn't think you could keep this secret. After 50 years of cold war paranoia and nonproliferation testing, I thought we could detect any nuclear detonation anywhere, underground, etc.

I'm sure the CIA knows whether they have...

uhh, nevermind.

U.N. 'Pre-bukes' U.S. Over North Korean Nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

U.N. 'Pre-bukes' U.S. Over North Korean Nukes
by Scott Ott

(2005-02-10) -- The United Nations Security Council, in the wake of North Korea's admission that it has nuclear weapons, has passed a resolution "pre-buking" the Bush administration for whatever action it might take against the communist dictatorship.

"When we learned of nuclear weapons in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), we immediately feared a U.S. response," said Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "By pre-buking the U.S., the Security Council demonstrates solidarity with the future victims of the American military occupation."

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress have introduced a resolution condemning President George Bush in advance for "misleading us into conflict with North Korea simply because it's a nuclear-equipped Stalinist regime which has threatened to turn America into a lake of fire."

"brags" is right

[pb]

I wrote a little something about this a while back; let me know if you find it amusing (or distressing (or both)).

Biggest reason we don't invade NK

[Cro Magnon]

It's not just that they have nukes that MIGHT reach us. It's not even because SK would get pulverized. It's because there is a rather large country north of NK that wouldn't be pleased at an American invasion there.

Re:Biggest reason we don't invade NK

[belgar]

It's not even because SK would get pulverized

Heh....I read that and thought, "Dude, what the hell did Saskatchewan ever do to the North Koreans?"

Doubtfull

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt they have the weapons. India and Pakastian announced to the world by each doing a test.

North Korea announces by sending out a press release.

It's classic NK bullshit madness. Saber rattling and nothing more. The government knows they're going down one way or the other.

It's not that its "New"

[cybrthng]

It's just now officially policy.

The BIG question isn't the intentions of N. Korea but what the US will do.

The Sad part is, living in the US i don't even know what we will do. Isn't it great when the foreign policy of a nation is scretive to its own people that government is supposed to serve and protect?

I certainly hope it won't be war, i certainly hope our government can get back to civil politics and i hope that we learn from the past so we aren't doomed to repeat it.

I'm so ronery

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm So Ronery
I'm so ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone

There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne
I work very hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems that no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery
A little ronery
Poor rittre me

There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feer rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage

I work rearry hard and I'm physicarry fit
But nobody here seems to rearize that
When I rure the world maybe they'rr notice me
But untir then I'rr just be ronery
Rittre ronery, poor rittre me
I'm so ronery
I'm so ronery

new batch of overlords

[geeveees]

I, for one, welcome my new communist Korean overlords!

Clinton

[Xoro]

Oh, come on. Please provide some evidence that the weapons being built were constructed with materials provided by the Clintons. Any evidence.

North Korea already had a civilian use nuclear program in place when they signed the NPT and allowed inspections in 1985. The only reason Clinton got involved after that was because the CIA thought the North Koreans weren't sticking to the deal. In other words, there was plenty of nuclear material in North Korea well before Clinton got involved.

Yes, Clinton's plan failed to do anything to solve the problem, except perhaps delaying the inevitable and perhaps not even that. But the Rushbot revisionist history is childish, stupid and unnecessary.

PS....

[seven of five]

That's 'nucyuler'

You're missing the main point

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. They have one bomb. ONE bomb. At best, provided everything goes exactly right for North Korea, they can wipe out exactly ONE US city. Let's be generous and say they hit New York - that's 20 million and change dead from nuclear explosion and fallout.

Now look at the retaliation. The US has hundreds, if not thousands (I forget the exact number) of nuclear weapons. Let's be pessimistic and say only 20 of our ICBMs are able to be pointed at North Korea. Then let's be even more pessimistic and say that out of those 20, only 1 has a MIRV, and it's a double-header. Yes, I know, unrealistic, but this is just for arguments sake.

The US has just wiped out 21 major cities in North Korea for the one that the North Korean bomb took out. Unless North Korea is run by monkeys, there is no chance in hell of a North Korean nuclear weapon EVER being a significant threat to US citizens.

You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Engineer-Poet]

For instance, this is BS:

Korea - we want to develop nuclear power

No they didn't. North Korea's Yongbyan reactor is only good for about 5 megawatts electric (30 MWthermal); it does not even have power lines running to it. That reactor was about weapons from the get-go.

For a better albeit incomplete analysis of the rest, like the "help", see here. For a timeline, see this.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you actually look at what he was talking about? No. For instance specifically what he's talking about was the US promise to help them buil CANDU reactors, and provide them with fuel oil in the interem while they were built, in exchange for their shutting down and scutteling their reactors capable of weapons production. The Clinton administration managed to keep the fuel going for a while, but the Republican congress absolutely refused to provide the funds for the new reactors. And they did so entirely out of spite. The diplomatic ovetures to North Korea that lead to this opportunity for greatly increased stability were begun by Bush Sr!

Instead, now they've had their collective irrational paranoia justified. Not having nuclear weapons, no matter what the claims, are not a shield against the US. Fantastic. So instead of getting out of this cheap, we're going to have a massive drag on the world economy as asia slows it's economy to weaponize, and decrease stability.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

what he's talking about was the US promise to help them buil CANDU reactors

CANDU reactors are made by Canada not the US.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[g0hare]

You're citing Newsmax as a source? Crap, you can do better by doing numerology on the bible.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[MetaPhyzx]

*nod* A bit of this I said in my post, and I agree. I don't know why anyone is so suprised.The opportunity to keep the peace was in early 2001, and without a counterweight in the White House to make noise about aid, the NK's were not going to get it. this simply wasn't a prority for the new administration.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[KevinKnSC]

Agreed. When there's a big "Team GOP" ad right next to the story, it's hard to even pretend it's unbiased.

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. You can find pretty much the same facts and more from the Federation of American Scientists.

They are scrupulously fact-oriented and are probably the least biased source you can find on these matters. See also: About FAS

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

OH...and when you see "MSNBC" "ABC" or "CBS" in the URL you KNOW you're getting unbiased news....LOL!!!

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ.. I can't believe someone here had the gall to actually post a NewsMax article as though it were a reliable source of information.

One expects that kind of behavior on the Yahoo chatboards...

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[Snaller]

"Korea - we want to develop nuclear power "

No they didn't. North Korea's Yongbyan reactor is only good for about 5 megawatts electric (30 MWthermal); it does not even have power lines running to it.

And why are there no lines, could it because the US didn't want to help them build it,eh?

Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts"

[KevinKnSC]

What's your point? Is Newsmax somehow less biased because other news sources might also be biased?

In Korea...

[PornMaster]

Only old people set up us the bomb!

Wow

[Ironsides]

Wow, I think that is the first time I have ever read an article from the post that is not against Bush. Thanks for the link.

Great more fodder

[pauldy]

I can wait to read all the comments from the mental midgets who claim this somehow relates to iraq, or a wmd inference, or the claims that it is somehow ok for north korea to build weapons because after all America did. All the while failing to recognize the real threat of the armament of a country that has in the past extorted money from the US under former presidents for exactly this scenario.

From my perspective this is more than likely a bluff on the part of North Korea as we still have not given them the money the originally asked for not to develop the nuclear weapons. I hope I am right on this more than anything and if I'm not maybe those people who would rather spread lies an innuendo because they think their socialist professor hung the moon would be better off in another country, sorry Canada. I'll be voting for the no take backs on your us citizenships though.

Good Job Mr Bush

[mzkhadir]

This is what you get for not negotiating properly.

Re:Good Job Mr Bush

[catdevnull]

shhh...quiet, dude! or you'll hear jackboots outside YOUR door!

Re:Good Job Mr Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled 'Clinton' wrong.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[Eravau]

They weren't being asked to show that something didn't exist. They were being asked to show that something known to exist had been destroyed. If you destroyed the drugs in your room, you could offer the charred remains or chemically neutralized results as proof of their destruction.

Acctually..

[Anonymous Coward]

they were the most reasonable they had ever been. The relatively recent policy of the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations had been almost entirely successful in encouraging them to give up their 50 year policy of brinksmanship. They even showed extrodinary patience (a distinctly unNorth Korean trait) as an unreasonably and hostile congress held back parts of the hard won agreement. The beligerance of North Korea today is ENTIRELY the fault of the Republican party, and it started with Newty in 1992. Incidentally, the same year the CIA averted WWIII by dismanteling Taiwan's nuclear weapons program which was taking place LITERALLY under the noses of the IAEA. Through a trapdoor, specifically.

North Korea use to just suck if you lived there. Now it sucks if you're within 9,000 miles of it. Yay, Bush. Why didn't God magic that ok?

The question is...

[greypilgrim]

...how is the oil situation in North Korea?

Are you a liar, or just ignorant?

[Engineer-Poet]

North Korea got its nuclear technology from China and Russia. The proliferation-resistant pressurized water reactors (primarily financed and built by S. Korea) which were part of the Clinton deal are not even partially completed.

Re:Are you a liar, or just ignorant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a liar, or just ignorant?

A little from column A, a little from column B. We call this attitude "Republicanism", for short.

Re:Are you a liar, or just ignorant?

[LifesABeach]

If I was running the N.K. I'd ask some interesting questions like:

how far is soul?

how far is peking?

how far is tokyo?

how far is tiwan?

and how far is moscow?

How Option 1 would affect /.

[Ohreally_factor]

No more laptops. No more flat panel displays.

Retaliation!?

[z1d0v]

Retaliation!? Isn't everyone trying to put an end to the nuclear era? People in the US talk, talk, talk, but they probably have nuclear power, are working on anti-matter bombs (much worse that nuclear ones, despite no radiation consequences), and don't follow the human rights (e.g. Guatemala) they impose on other countries! Damn, u americans are arrogants...

Re:Retaliation!?

[JavaLord]

Retaliation!? Isn't everyone trying to put an end to the nuclear era?

Sure, but for those that still want to live in it like North Korea, it has to be made clear to them that there will be retaliation and accountability for any nuclear attacks on the US.

People in the US talk, talk, talk, but they probably have nuclear power, are working on anti-matter bombs (much worse that nuclear ones, despite no radiation consequences),

I have no doubt the US government is working on 'better' war techonology. So what? Do you expect them to lay down and die for the world? When you say people in the US 'talk talk talk' what exactly are you talking about?

and don't follow the human rights (e.g. Guatemala) they impose on other countries! Damn, u americans are arrogants...

Nice Anti-American rant, but the US policy (Any nuclear attack on the US will lead to retaliation) is pretty much the same policy all of the nuclear powers have. So if you are looking at a reason to hate the US, look somewhere else.

I'd suggest trying to watch some of our television. :)

Re:Retaliation!?

[ezavada]

So let me get this straight. They protest that the US government is hypocritical because it doesn't support human rights and you offer as defense that something about American nuclear policy?

How about this:

Bush in his State of the Union address said that it was the goal of the US to promote freedom thoughout the world, for all people everywhere.

Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.

It sure doesn't sound like he's very sincere.

Re:Retaliation!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo

I noticed you used the words 'human rights abuses' and dropped the 'geneva convention' term in this argument. Has everyone finally realized that the geneva convention didn't apply to terrorists? As for their 'human rights' (whatever that means), please explain what exactly you consider human rights and how these were violated.

and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib was soooo horrible. They posed prisoners in sexual positions and made them wear panties on their heads...You do realize of course, that worse things go on in US prisons every day. You also realize that these terrorists that were being made to do this would behead their prisoners? I'd say wearing panties on your head beats getting your head cut off with a dull knife. Also, the mistreatment of prisoners (I won't call that abuse) at Abu Ghraib were the acts of a few stupid soldiers that *went against military policy* and they were punished for it. To hold high level officials accountable for things they can not control is silly.

Re:Retaliation!?

[z1d0v]

Sure, but for those that still want to live in it like North Korea, it has to be made clear to them that there will be retaliation and accountability for any nuclear attacks on the US.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems odd (to say the least), that the US wants NK to stop the development of nuclear power, yet, they do exacly the same thing...

I have no doubt the US government is working on 'better' war techonology. So what? Do you expect them to lay down and die for the world? When you say people in the US 'talk talk talk' what exactly are you talking about?

I'm expecting they stand out as an example for the rest of the world. They do have that responsability, in my point of view. When I say people in the US 'talk talk talk', I mean they have great ideals, but then they just don't follow them...

Nice Anti-American rant, but the US policy (Any nuclear attack on the US will lead to retaliation) is pretty much the same policy all of the nuclear powers have. So if you are looking at a reason to hate the US, look somewhere else.

I have to say I got carried away there, but that's just to tempting to have those thoughts :P . I don't hate the US, I just think they should first clean their own home (solve your problems first), instead of giving hunchs on several subjects, and oh yeah, invade other people's country...

I'd suggest trying to watch some of our television. :)

I do watch american TV as much as the next guy here in Europe. I dont have the that's-american-so-I-don't-watch/buy-it attitude. ;-)

Re:Retaliation!?

[mattwarden]

Um, please google:

"Cold War"
"Mutually Assured Destruction"

Sincerely,

An Arrogant American

Re:Retaliation!?

[Shadwhawk]

Antimatter bombs? Are you joking?
The world-wide production of antimatter can be measured in nanograms per year. We can't even light a 60w lightbulb with the amount of antimatter we make. The fact that it requires enormous particle accelerators pretty much precludes any mass production.
Oh, and it costs roughly $25 billion per gram.
Antimatter explosives would not be 'much worse' than nuclear weapons. You would simply need less material to create a similarly-sized reaction (a 64Mton nuclear device is quite large. A 64Mton antimatter device requires only 3 kilograms of reactant). And at our current production rates, we might get 1.5 kilograms of antimatter in, what, a trillion years?

Re:Retaliation!?

[mattwarden]

You're assuming the people in Guantanamo are guilty. If you think this is the case, allow me to introduce you to my friend Google...

Re:Retaliation!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming the people in Guantanamo are guilty. If you think this is the case, allow me to introduce you to my friend Google...

Because if it says on the internet that they aren't guilty....IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!

Re:Retaliation!?

[HiThere]

It may or may not be true, but is certainly hasn't been proven, or even demonstraded to be near .9 probable.

I suspect that many people there would fail the civil court test for innocence. I also suspect that a large number of them, perhaps most, would pass the criminal court standard as not-guilty. (The difference being "perponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt".)

Re:Retaliation!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.

Judge Jay S. Bybee wrote the Memo, not Alberto Gonzales. No one in the Bush Administration has publicly defended the memo. The memo was a legal arguement, not a statement of policy. Stop reading propaganda.

Re:Retaliation!?

[ezavada]

Stop reading propaganda

I can't help it, it's just so juicy, I'm afraid I'm addicted.

more propaganda

Re:Retaliation!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that many people there would fail the civil court test for innocence. I also suspect that a large number of them, perhaps most, would pass the criminal court standard as not-guilty. (The difference being "perponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt".)

Only a military trial would be reasonable, many in gitanmo aren't citizens, they are enemy soldiers that belong to no nation state and should be treated as such.

Ob. Simpsons (3G04)

[djdavetrouble]

Officer: Next weekend, we're having our annual war games. Now Simpson, because of your many years as a nuclear technician, we're putting you on a nuclear sub.
Homer: "Nuc-u-lar". It's pronounced "nuc-u-lar".
Officer: Oh, whatever.
Homer: "Nuc-u-lar".

Looking forward....

[catdevnull]

I'm looking forward to a post-nuclear winter as a nice seasonal change from global warming.

I say we give all contried nuclear weapons

[scorp1us]

Think of it this way. If we give out (or sell) nukes, then no countries will invest in a weapons program. They will not develop local knowlege or industry required to produce the nukes. We certainly have enough of them. We just have to make them exlode if they are tampered with.

Not to mention you could easily embed a radio kill switch so that no nukes can be used without US approval. But they won't know about the kill switch because they can't tamper.

So everyone has nukes to brag about, for "defense" only and we all stay safe because we can kill any aggression with a radio broadcast. If they really are for "defense" no one should object to that.

Q.E.D.

[4of12]

Well, it's happened.

My President warned of the The Axis of Evil that included three players: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

We've invaded Iraq and found no WMD there, but it is looking more and more likely that WMD are located in the other 2 countries. This should not be surprising to anyone.

The 3rd country (Iraq) was irrelevant; my geometry teacher would say that an axis needs only 2 points to be described.

Minor interruption

[Zygote-IC-]

I don't want to get in the way of the "OMFG CHIMPY MCSHRUB HITLER BUSH INVADED IRAQ WHILE NORTH KOREA MADE NUKES" discussion, but if memory serves me right, didn't the Clinton administration strike an agreement with the NoKos in 1994 where they were going to stop their nuclear program, but I'll be damned, they just kept doing it anyway?

All the time we thought they were sort of whistling and saying, "Oh boy, I'm sure glad we aren't developing nuclear weapons" while all the while deep inside Kim Jong Il's mountain fortress they really were.

So, isn't it possible that NK had nuclear weapons already when the whole Iraq thing started?

Could we have known that and that possibly be why we didn't invade or attack NK because Tokyo and Seoul would be faced with a Radioactive Zerg Rush they couldn't possibly stop?

Could the NK situation be why we don't want Iraq and Iran to get to that point -- because we're essentially powerless if they do?

Nahh...more likely it was "OMFG, BUSHITLER TAKING OVER THE WORLD FOR THE RIAA!!"

I know I will be modded -1 but

[oconnorcjo]

We can thank Bill Clinton for this. Bill's policy was "Oh stop development and we will give you money." And of course N. Korea said "Ok Bill- thanks for the cash" ... and later ... "Hey you bomb guys said you needed more money to continue tinkering? Well we have some new funds for you". Everybody knew the treaty Bill made with N. Koreans was only good for wiping ones ass. Type "Clinton Korea" into google and you can read about it yourself. The first link gives a "pro Clinton" view (emphesising how complicated the issue was and how Clinton was really ellected to be a domestic hero) while many other links say "how stupid". The reason I will not give any specific links is because I believe that this is a case where the reader should do thier own research.

Re:I know I will be modded -1 but

[Moby Cock]

Not really true. The deal struck by Albright in 2000 was that the NK nuclear weapon program would be shut down and the US would build a nuclear power generating station. Then the US welched on the deal and did not build a plant (under direction from the new administration in the White House; Bush. They also took a much more hardline stance on NK. So the North Koreans resumed their actions.

Re:I know I will be modded -1 but

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded -1? Are you a fool? This is /. and ANYTHING that slams the Bush Administration is flagged Insightful or Informative!

Re:I know I will be modded -1 but

[tomcode]

The whole point of that deal was to open the population to communicate with the outside world, so they can read something besides their Dear Leader Catechism. It's not threats, but satellite TV and economic relationships that will free NK.

Nixon did the same thing with China.

Re:I know I will be modded -1 but

[Anonymous Coward]

above reply is complete bullshit.

I don't think he is bluffing

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play"

Don't be so sure.

Look at the India/Pakastan standoff. The govement of Pakastan has already said, to the public, that they are developign nukes with the intent of sending them to India as soon as they are complete. and I don't mean sending them in a nice way, I mean launching a nuke stike against india.

There is no bluffing here. Some people are willing to kill million to get what they consider revenge.

Your attitude of "bluffing" is common and is a huge problem. One day, probably after a dirty bomb goes off in NYC that some peopel just don't bluff adn just don't care.

Re:I don't think he is bluffing

[Anonymous Coward]

With the attitude on slashdot towards outsourcing I would think you people would be enthusiastic about this. Pakistan and India take each other out, less competition.

Re:N Korea's nuclear weapons and our online rights

[Ohreally_factor]

This is pretty crass, but:

Do you use a laptop?

Do you have a flat panel monitor?

Where does your RAM come from?

AMERICA'S IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS

[jac1962]

You only have to look at those poor, suffering Japanese and Germans to know that America wants to rule the world.

Re:AMERICA'S IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS

[Darby]

You only have to look at those poor, suffering Japanese and Germans to know that America wants to rule the world.

And you have to go back 60 years to find examples of where we actually did it right.
The vast majority of the more modern examples are of us assassinating democratically elected leaders to install brutal dictators who murder 10s of thousands of their own citizens in the interest of American business.

Pull your sadly deluded head out of your ass and reallize that while we aren't solely evil, we are not anywhere near "good" either.

Didn't they aready admit to..

[parseexception]

having space based plasma weapons as well?

WMD? Look in your backyard

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain to me, if no countries are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, then why does the U.S. have enough WMD/Firepower to blow this world to pieces several times around?

Defend themselves? Well, then why should no one else have the right to defend themselves?

Re:WMD? Look in your backyard

[doppleganger871]

Because we have a gov't full of wussies that'd never use them. It's all a "show" of force. The same reason why states that allow carrying firearms for protection have less crime.

Re:WMD? Look in your backyard

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't have the trust to hold a nuclear weapon. Would you let your 3 year old hold a firecracker and a match?

I wonder

[Netsensei]

Did they got those bombs via eBay after overbidding Iran?

Morally just?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so I'm clear, how many countries have nuclear capabilities? France, Russia, US, Israel, etc etc etc I'm sure the list goes on, how can any nation state thats its ok for them to have nukes but not for another? I mean if we're going on previous record of use, how many countries have actually used nuclear weapons in an open conflict? I'm not a huge history buff, but I can say with certainty that the answer to that is one, and that country is tasked with the duty of ensuring that others don't? Are we so egotistical that we tell other nations to do as we say and not as we do? Why not lead by example, start disarming the world beginning with ourselves? It would be nice to have the moral superiority for once. Is anyone else tired of being the bad guy?

- PC

Re:Morally just?

[tooley]

Oh my. Please let me restate your point...

1. Any country that has nukes is morally equal.
2. Because one country used atomic weapons it is subject to contempt regarding it's moral justification in regulating other countries' development and promulgation of nuclear weapons.
3. When faced with many countries beginning to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, the reaction should be to destroy one's own nuclear weapons.
4. Decommissioning our armaments would provide moral superiority.

I would add a few points.

1. Absolute truth exists.
2. Evil therefore exists as a counter to truth.
3. The US used an atomic weapon to bring an overly proud and evil government to capitulation.
4. The US wields it's power in a generally circumspect and morally correct way. You may disagree, but it's okay to be wrong. God has granted us freedoms which our country recognizes.

Before you all go jumping mad, please stop to consider that:

1. If you believe there is no absolute truth, then you have no basis on which to attack me. My truth is just as good as yours.

2. If you have a problem with that statement, then maybe you are thinking I am wrong. If you are thinking I am wrong, you are referencing an absolute truth. Oops, can't do that.

3. If you are right and there is no absolute truth, then we're all okay, and I am no worse for believing what I believe.

4. If I am right, and there is absolute truth, then you are in trouble.

-tooley-

Re:Morally just?

[easter1916]

4. The US wields it's power in a generally circumspect and morally correct way. You may disagree, but it's okay to be wrong. God has granted us freedoms which our country recognizes.

Your meds have stopped working.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[B2382F29]

Except that the US accused Iraq of driving around their labs on trucks (nice made up pictures btw.) and even lied to the UN about baby massacres. As you might remember, Iraq did give a shitload of paper and CDs with "Proof", but unfortunately "too late" for the Bush-administration. IMHO, that "too late" smells a lot like "we don't care what you say, we will invade you anyway....". Oh, and the UN inspectors were making great progress when they were taken out of the country to prepare the attack. (And please no more "they didn't follow the UN resolution", there are plenty of other resolutions not followed but you don't see the US enforcing them....)

Re:Bullshit

[MysteriousPreacher]

Interesting point. I've seen this point made elsewhere to explain the Bush administrations love of war and disdain for the environment.

Not sure I agree with it but, if they believe that God is destined to come and fix everything once the shit really hit the fan, that would explain their reckless attitude.

Re: Checklist...and its not just about oil

[TANSTAAFL_Guy]

North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check,BR> No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check
Able to flatten the national capital of a major regional ally using conventional artillery within minutes of the start of any hostile action: Check.
Send in the...Ooops, wait a minute, did anyone bother to count just how many THOUSANDS of conventional artillery pieces the NKs have pointed at Seoul?

Oh...THAT many, huh? Ummmm, never mind.
If "that other country" could have shelled Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or Kuwait City, etc back to the stone age using only conventional artillery, then everyone's favorite deposed dictator would not have been found literally hiding in a hole in the ground.

Freedom and democracy?

[Brando_Calrisean]

North Korea's "nuclear weapons will remain [a] nuclear deterrent for self-defence under any circumstances," the ministry said. It said that what it considers Washington's attempts to topple the North's regime "compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people."

This statement makes me want to vomit.

Re:Freedom and democracy?

[G-News.ch]

Sounds like Bush's inauguration speech to me...

Re:Freedom and democracy?

[Brando_Calrisean]

I understand that you're trying to be "clever", and you're compelled to knee-jerk bush-bashing at the drop of a hat, but do you _honestly_ think the state of democracy in North Korea is at all comparable to that of the United States? Like, come on.

Re:Freedom and democracy?

[G-News.ch]

No, certainly not, but I never doubted that. I was merely trying to point out that both regimes have the idea that their form of governance & power is the right one that has to be defended at all costs. In case of NK, this means, after the international failure of socialism, defending what is left. Under the pressure of nations like the USA, they aparently feel they need nuclear weapons to ensure that safety. The USA in turn has been following a policy of an offensive defense by trying to "seed democracy" wherever it isn't established yet. I don't believe in seeding by force (read: going to war) nor am I naive enough to think that democracy can be established in every country in the world within a few years. This is a process that has taken many generations in Europe and even in the USA. Plus, who has the right to say, that other forms of government can't be good for the people too? What's wrong with a monarchy everybody likes? What's wrong with an aristocraty that nobody wants to oppose? Bush doesn't differentiate between parliamentary democracies, semi-presidential and presidential democracies either, although the differences are without doubt substantial at times. I don't think the world is going to be a safer place, after the USA have stirred up all the now stable nations that Bush feels are non-democratic. If you think about it: Which armed conflict the USA have been part of has been settled in the way the US intended, since WW2? That's right, none. Bush is not going to appease the world by going to war against it.

Re:Freedom and democracy?

[Brando_Calrisean]

Which armed conflict the USA have been part of has been settled in the way the US intended, since WW2?

Um.. Iraq? I mean, they brought down Saddam, as intended, and democratic elections have taken place with a huge voter turnout. Why are you disregarding this? Also.. the Kuwaiti conflict?

I seriously hope you're not implying that Kim Jong Il's 'form of government' is 'good for people'. And even if you are saying that, don't you think there's something fundamentally wrong with the fact that North Koreans have absolutely no power in changing the way they are governed? (Additionally, those that even try and establish any form of media to report the human rights violations are promptly executed.) Well, it might be easier to swallow if they had any kind of standard of living, but the majority of them are living in _destitute_ poverty while foreign aid (North Korea recieves the most foreign aid out of any country, worldwide) gets diverted to the military and sold on the black markets.

I see your point - I just don't know that it applies to North Korea and other countries which employ _highly_ suppressive forms of government.

And again.. I'm not sure how you can manage to blame Bush for it, although I know its in style on campus these days.

Re:Freedom and democracy?

[G-News.ch]

Look at Iraq today: Does it have elections? Yes Is it a working and stable democracy? Definitely not Are dozens of people dying every day, because the country is in a state of half a civil war? Yes Also, don't mistake voter turnout for a sign of a healthy democracy. Dictatorships usually have the highest turnouts in their fake votes than any real democracy and by some standards, the USA have the lowest voter turnout worldwide, yet it seems to be working well, doesn't it? No I'm not saying NK is good for the people, but Bush isn't likely going to attack NK anytime soon anyway. Look at Cuba for example. They have a regime that is non-democratic and in Bush's opinion would have to be replaced. Yet Cuba isn't that bad off and they have a health-care system that is splendid, particularly in rural regions. That system would collapse faster than you could say "splat", if the regime was overturned and the country emerged in a classical capitalist market. I seriously doubt they'd be better off without Castro, even if he has his faults. Iran is similar, only that their regime is founded on religion. Overturning their regime is like going into the Amazon and try to mission some indians that catholicism is the way to go. We stopped doing that 100 years ago, why start over now?

"And there's NO evidence that Bush bought their.."

[Anonymous Coward]

>And there's NO evidence that Bush "bought their cooperation".

Hot off the press (today) is a $400 Million reward:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/425260 1. stm

Sounds like buying to me...(coalition of the bought)

Utter Hypocrisy?

[DesScorp]

" Yeah, good thing we raided big bad Iraq, while sweet lil' N. Korea was doing all of this."

Somehow I doubt that if we had proposed raiding sweet lil' N. Korea with military force, you'd have supported it. Somehow, I get the feeling you would have said "We're attacking an innocent sovereign nation for no good reason!"

Re:Utter Hypocrisy?

[RevAaron]

Except, unlike Iraq, we've known that the DPRK has had some nuclear capability for a long time. So, while some of us would have said "No! don't go to war over a madman with nukes!" at least there would have been some truth behind the reason for invasion.

Re:Utter Hypocrisy?

[salvorHardin]

Somehow I doubt that if we had proposed raiding sweet lil' N. Korea with military force, you'd have supported it. Somehow, I get the feeling you would have said "We're attacking an innocent sovereign nation for no good reason!"

Depends on your version of innocent. If having nuclear weapons makes a state inherently evil, then that'd make USA, France, UK and Russia all evil. I think perhaps that being told not to develop nukes by a nation loaded with nukes is a little hypocritical. Sure, the stakes just got higher, we're really gonna have to learn to play nicely now. And that means everyone.

Re:Utter Hypocrisy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Kim Jong Il could be bluffing, hoping to embarass the USA even more than the Iraq fiasco.

"Hey, we have Nukes!"... Eleventy Trillion Dollars later "oops, we didn't find any weapons"

Re:Utter Hypocrisy?

[carpe_noctem]

If having nuclear weapons makes a state inherently evil, then that'd make USA, France, UK and Russia all evil.

Were you trying to be sarcastic here?

Re:Utter Hypocrisy?

[RevAaron]

thus spake ACthustra:
Or Kim Jong Il could be bluffing, hoping to embarass the USA even more than the Iraq fiasco.

"Hey, we have Nukes!"... Eleventy Trillion Dollars later "oops, we didn't find any weapons"

Perhaps, but there are more sources than just Kim and his Ministers' claims. Other "intelligence," as they say. Regardless, even without the claims of the DPRK's government, the case is pretty strong.

Where is the admission of nuculear?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read http://www.kcna.co.jp/

That's the "Korea Central News Agency" north-korean propaganda outlet in Tokyo. That's where the Slashdot-linked article says that North Korea made their nuclear arms announcement.

Yet, there are no stories in the past three days about "WE HAVE NUKES TO STRIKE OPPRESSOR", just rants against South Korea for partnering with the evil dictator/mobster US state.

It's pretty amusing to read, actually. But where have all the flowers gone ?

Can I add some more?

[Ironsides]

Can we add Rome (they got all the way to England), Handibal, Napolean, the Spanish Conquistadors (sorry, some of their names excape me right now), China->Tibet, the Mongols with the Kahns. Hell, even the arabs have done quite a bit of this (though for some it has been a while, and for some it has been only 15 years).

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[b-baggins]

The U.N. gave the conditions Iraq had to meet in order to give proof. Saddam failed to do it.

To people looking at this objectively (translation: without a blind hatred of Bush), it's pretty obvious that Saddam was bluffing. He WANTED the world to think he had the program.

He was buying off France, Russia and Germany with the Oil for Food program to get them to lift the sanctions against him.

He had a WMD program ready to ramp up the moment the sanctions were lifted. Until then, he was playing a bluff. He was making the world think he had the WMD so they'd leave him alone, and he was bribing France, Russia and Germany to get the sanctions lifted so he could actually build a WMD program and not bluff anymore.

The problem for Iraq was, Bush and not Gore got elected and 9/11 happened. Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda were well known and documented through most of the Clinton years, but Clinton's attitude toward terrorism had been to treat it as a law-enforcement issue. 9/11 pushed Bush into thinking of terrorism more as a war than as law enforcement. Iraq suddenly went from a country supporting a criminal organization, to a country involved in war against the United States. Ditto Iran and North Korea. (Bush called them the axis of evil because of their support and sponsoring of terrorist organizations.)

Usay made a very interesting quote near the end of the U.S. invasion.

"I think this is the end. Bush is not Clinton."

Saddam miscalculated. He had always maintained that America was squeamish. Bleed them enough and they sue for peace or retreat. He saw it happen in Mogadeshu, and it was his stated strategy in the Gulf War. He claimed that if he could fill a thousand body bags a day, in a week, the U.S. would be negotiating for a cease fire and peace with him still in Kuwait. Fortunately, his military was incapable of accomplishing his desire.

This is not rocket science if you understand certain things:

There are power-mad dictators in the world.
Bush is not one of them.

Bush caused all of this

[bach37]

This is obviously a serious matter, but we should not believe anything that Kim Jong Il says without adequate proof.

This is serious. What Bush does and says to this may make everything a LOT worse. Showing your fists and your big army with bombs ready to "spread freedom" is not the way to peace. It's good to be a tough guy, but I HOPE and PRAY that Bush doesn't threaten N Korea. That method does not work. It just makes the other side more willing to get nukes and attack us. We may have WWIII on our hands already.

Not to worry

[Anonymous Coward]

We still have 15,000 more nukes than they do :-)

MacArthur WAS right

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have pushed China and NK above the 49th parallel and nuked them into the stone age when we had the chance.

Revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, well timed.

I don't think everybody understands asian people well - North Korea nuke is just response to Team America: World cops!

Would anyone ever guess that Kim Tchong Ill will take it seriously and personally? Now, he's no longer alone, he's got nukes.

You need to learn your history

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh... poverty is really a sin.

No, poverty is not a sin. Being the single most repressed dictatorship in human history is a sin. North Korea is a loose cannon. They have over a million troops on their border with the south ready to invade at a moments notice. They were the aggressor in the Korean war when they invaded the south on June 25th, 1950. While I'm not much of a fan of Israel, I don't think that such concerns apply to them, or France or some of the other nuclear powers.

food imports

[Anonymous Coward]

We should stop feeding them for the forseeable future.

Bush's fault

[Rollie Hawk]

If we weren't engaged in illegal wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, this would never have happened.

Re:Bush's fault

[doppleganger871]

My tagline says it all.

Re:Bush's fault

[Rollie Hawk]

I know. I was just seeing how long it took to get an insightful score. :)

Re:Bush's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal wars ?

I bet even your mother doesn't like you anymore.

Stupid kids are cute but stupid adolescents are just plain boring.

Re:Bush's fault

[Rollie Hawk]

It's not like they developed nukes and got the technology under Clinton's watch.

Re:Bush's fault

[east coast]

If we weren't engaged in illegal wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, this would never have happened.

To quote Fugazi: Ahistorical, you think this shit dropped right out of the sky? My analysis; it's time to harvest the crust from your eyes

Re:Bush's fault

[kilfarsnar]

Yes, and in so many ways...

GWB Retard Kung-Fu (Re:Uh oh...)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think our brand of crazy is stronger than theirs. I see Jong as a pathetic JWB wannabe. Actually, I'm hoping Jong calls out our cowboy and personally attacks him. Let the sh*t kick'n commence! Our boy will go into a retard flurry and everyone knows retard crazy fighting is the strongest form of kung-fu. Bring it on Jong! Bring it on, Punk!

You need proof?

[saha]

Perhaps one should ask Pakistan's military or ISI (Intra Service Intelligence) of how the hell N. Korea, Libya and Iran all got their nuclear weapons. You do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons right? Then traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles or have you not been following the news. The best part of all this is that A.Q. Khan the father of the Pakistan atomic bomb, is consider to be a "hero" in his home country and is shielded from the IAEA or any branch of US intelligence from questioning Khan's activities and motivations. Musharraf has also pardoned Khan for selling nukes to all those countries. It really makes me laugh when the administration calls Pakistan an "ally on the war on terror". Seriously, with allies like Pakistan who needs enemies or terrorists?

Pakistan Ended Aid to Taliban Only Hesitantly December 8, 2001
Pakistan spy service 'aiding Bin Laden' 30 December, 2001
Musharraf: Bin Laden may be dead 23 December, 2001
Pakistan's leader thinks bin Laden dead January 18, 2002
Bin Laden trail is cold, Musharraf admits December 6, 2004
A Hostile Land Foils the Quest for bin Laden December 13, 2004
Protest at Musharraf's army role 19 December, 2004 So much for us supporting democracy and "freedom"
Musharraf Scorns Nuclear Probe

Re:You need proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons right? Then traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles or have you not been following the news.

You say that like they did a bad thing.

The fact is, the USA has demonstrated repeatedly that if you don't have an effective means of defending yourself against them, you are going to be pushed around and possibly invaded. And it doesn't matter if you are their ally, things change quickly.

Basically, every other country is likely to cooperate with each other to defend themselves against the USA. It's a sensible thing to do and I don't blame them one bit for doing it.

Re:You need proof?

[lewi]

Pakistan may be an ally but is clearly not our friend. The fact that we were able to coerce their help with Afghanistan is impressive espcially since they support the jihadists: "There has always been a tacit understanding that Pakistan's bomb will be used to regain the glory of Islam and defend the "rights" of the Muslims wherever they are persecuted by infidel powers. This was truly an Islamic bomb." (http://www.paktoday.com/islamic.htm) Our military is going after the buyers instead of the dealers. We should have obliterated Pakistan when we went to Afghanistan. What enemy of Islam will Pakistan sell nukes to next?

Re:You need proof?

[starm_]

+1 Insightfull. And if you extrapolate a little you see that the US has fueled a Nuclear weapon's race and lead the path to a nuclear war. They could easily be responsible for the destruction of a large part of the human race in the near future.

Re:You need proof?

[starm_]

The only logical solution here is for the US to apologize to the middle east and make an agreement to reduce the stock of nuclear weapons and military force of all the countries _including the US_. But since the US is run by fanatical religious leaders that think "god" speaks to them this will never happen.

Re:You need proof?

[purpleduh]

Yes, but where did Pakistan get it's nuke technology? China was the root of the problem.

Re:You need proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pakistan doesn't have any nukes. Their tests were faked and the EMP and seismic records prove it. In diplomatic circles, their claim of nukes is politely ignored to help deal with peace issues between them and India. If they want to sell their non working nukes to others, fine.

Re:You need proof?

[trawg]

Dude, come back when you've got some links from Fox News - all those other news services are amateurs!!

Numbers

[denjin]

Here is a link for the arsenal numbers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/733162. stm

I agree on the points though. I dislike Bush (understatement), but he's not dumb enough to use a nuclear bomb, nor are most nations on this planet.

What is Really happening?

[that OTHER geek]

I'm wondering if North Korea really said anything about nuclear bombs. I think the US might have created this story, so that if in the future, a nuclear bomb is dropped, they can blame North Korea, instead of facing the implications of their own actions. I find it harder and harder to trust what the american media says.

Re:What is Really happening?

[iggymanz]

by all means please share with us which country has trustworthy news media. Then prepare for numerous counterexamples!

Re:What is Really happening?

[doppleganger871]

I've stopped trusting the "big 3" news media outlets a long time ago. That, and most of the newspapers, too.

Re:What is Really happening?

[that OTHER geek]

I wouldn't dare say that any country has entirely trustworthy news media. We have seen many recent examples of how untrustworthy the US media has been. I think that the fact that we do not have any one reliable news source makes Slashdot so much more important. By carrying out worldwide discussions we are able to attempt to find the real truth in what we are told.

OMG this is a GLOBAL event !

[Anonymous Coward]

this is incredible news, for those who can't get to a TV or radio to witness this breaking news

1200 articles
Prime ministers statement
Picture of the happy couple
there will be more updates on the "Richard and Judy show" later

Asked about the Prime Minister's appearance on "Richard and Judy" later today, and would they discuss the marriage announcement [Number 10 press]

stay tuned !

Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[GPLDAN]

Home of the unqualified opinion!

Well, here's mine. It hasn't been brought up yet, so let's see if anyone considers it insightful...

The Chinese are not our enemies in this issue. They actually fear a totally destabilized N. Korea as well. That they came to the rescue in the Korean War belies a much more complicated truth about the relationship between Koreans and Chinese. China, on the verge of becoming the 2nd superpower economically, is really not all tha keen on seeing Kim Il Jong do things like test fire intermediate range missiles into the Sea of Japan. They know that quite a few U.S. boomers are riding the coast of Korea, and will have Trident IIs arriving on target in minutes if we think a nuke had been actually launched, at either the West Coast (which we know they cannot yet reach) or Japan. And they know that the Chinese would not respond.

The worst case scenario really is, that NK's increasing starving and helpless population is thrust under some stupid pretext into an attack on S. Korea and a nuclear weapon is moved to the front and detonated and then denied. Again, I think the U.S. would go nuclear if that happened.

Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[Rollie Hawk]

All I know is this never would have happened with Kerry or Clinton in office. It's not like Clinton helped them get nuclear secrets and materials or anything. It's Bush's fault!

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[pauldy]

What is funny is given the current slashdot crowd I wouldn't be surprised to see this moderated as insightful rather than funny..

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[Rollie Hawk]

That's what I'm waiting for.

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[flend]

I'm interested in your assertion that China would not respond. If it looked like American or American-supported forces were invading North Korea, I'm convinced the Chinese government would absolutely fight against the invading troops. The Chinese do not want to share a border with the Yanks.

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[scharkalvin]

We might be tempted to go nuclear, but we wouldn't have too. A few MOABS in the right places would be just as effective. Maybe a Fuel-Air bomb or two over their capital.

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[ThousandStars]

Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.

The real problem with NK is not necessarily that NK directly uses a nuclear weapon, because they know that in such a situation, NK would rapidly become a hole in the ground. Rather, the issue is what NK will do with its atomic weapons: if the answer is "sell one to the highest bidder" -- and the highest bidder could pay hundreds of millions of dollars for one -- then we have to worry about a third party detonating a bomb, as I indicated in an earlier post in this thread.

Re:Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot...

[w42w42]

I think China is the big unknown in this whole thing. If NK *does* have the bomb, SK and Japan are not going to sit by and not develop one themselves. China you can also be sure DOES NOT want a nuclear armed S Korea or Japan. So I think the interesting question in this whole thing is, what is China going to do?

NWB

[Raypeso]

..."Springfield has been classified "NWB," for "Nuclear Whipping Boy." In the first moments of a nuclear war, Springfield will be bombed at will by all friendly nations to calibrate their missiles. [audience cheers wildly] Now for total security, I will terminate the cameraman..."

In North Korea, TA is taken as serious threat :)

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like Kim Jong Il took it personally.

Well, with couple of nukes, one is never alone.

NUKE EM

[Anonymous Coward]

NUKE EM

What???

[DesScorp]

"...all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough."

That's absolute bullshit. We NEVER ignored North Korea. North Korea was second only to Iraq in terms of rogue nations we were concerned with. Not even Iran ranked that high until now. Have you ever actually LISTENED to Bush's speeches on national security? Hello Axis of Evil!

And this begs the question, what would you have the President do about NK? Hmmm? Diplomacy? We've been doing that intensley. Sanctions? They're starving already, and I doubt you would have supported that option anyway. Invasion? I KNOW you wouldn't have supported that. So other than just criticizing Bush, what would you have had him do? Throw money at North Korea? We've BEEN doing that for over a decade. Hell, Clinton GAVE them reactor technology if they'd promise pretty please not to use it for military applications. Unhhh huhhhh. THAT was bright, eh?

So do you actually have any solutions to the NK problem? Or are you just going to bash Bush for it?

Re:What???

[Anonymous Coward]

And this begs the question

No it doesn't. Please learn the meaning of phrases before you use them. It RAISES the question.

Invasion? I KNOW you wouldn't have supported that.

That's the whole point. Bush's arguments for invading Iraq work doubly so for North Korea. And everybody already agreed that they had WMD. The criticism of Bush is that if he was being honest about his motives for invading Iraq, he would have invaded North Korea a long time before that.

Re:What???

[darkmeridian]

If you hadn't invaded Iraq AND Afghanistan, an invasion of North Korea was plausible rather than a bluff. Invading Afghanistan was enough to show that we were nuts enough to run off and invade a country that posed a risk to us.

North Korea took really aggressive steps in the past, like kicking the nuclear watchdogs out. Bush did not take the steps differently. Pre-emptive strikes on a country with nukes? Wouldn't that have made sense over one that did not?

Re:What???

[FleaPlus]

Pre-emptive strikes on a country with nukes? Wouldn't that have made sense over one that did not?

It might make sense if it didn't have thousands of artillery weapons aimed at Seoul, a city with a population of around 11 million.

This may not be a bad thing

[Jononon]

It's been known, or at least very strongly suspected, that North Korea has had a nuclear weapons programme for 10 years. In terms of their position of strength against SK "admission" makes very little difference.
The US government's standard line is that countries must permit inspection and monitoring and 'come clean' about their weapons. Iraq's failure to do so was the legal justification for the US invasion.
It may be that in admitting that they have a programme North Korea is aiming to be recognised as a state making moves to defend itself, rather than a danger to international security.
There appears to be a movement to reduce the personality cult and begin to behave as a less totalitarian regime, although probably still a hereditary dictatorship, this may be evidence thereof.

Re:This may not be a bad thing

[norkakn]

"Iraq's failure to do so was the legal justification for the US invasion. "

um, what??
Iraq didn't have a weapons program and there wasn't a legal justification........

Re:This may not be a bad thing

[Jononon]

The legal justification was: "in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions" Not that they had a weapons programme but, rather, that they didn't comply with UN checks on whether or not they had a weapons programme. The legal and supposed 'moral' justifications differ.

Re:This may not be a bad thing

[norkakn]

that isn't a legal justification for war.

Re:This may not be a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

`the UN Charter, under which there are only two grounds for the use of force in international conflicts. As they explained: "The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self-defence. The attack must be actual or imminent.

"The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections)."'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/law-f2 7. shtml

umm.... China?

[mhmealling]

Could it possibly be that the reason we can't walk into North Korea as easily as we did Iraq and Afghanistan is that North Korea has a very large "sponsor" that has told the entire world to keep their hands off "or else".

The minute any American crossed the DMZ China would instantly take Taiwan, abolish Hong Kong's parliament, and immediately send troops to defend North Korea.

That doesn't sound like a situation I'd like to start with. Iraq was low hanging fruit. North Korea is as near to the top of the tree as you can get without actually being Russia or China.

Ob Doomsday clock reference

[ggvaidya]

So what does the Doomsday clock say about this? I'll put my money on five minutes to (it's currently at seven minutes to, and i think the closest we've ever been was two minutes to in 1953).

Korea?! So, what...

[mynickwastaken]

Bush at a press conference:
- I have two news, one bad and one good. Wo do you want 1st?
- The good one... says the crowd
- Ok. Korea had recognized having nukes. That was the good news. And now the bad one... My mission is to stop countries from building nukes. Korea did it already. We will atack Iran.

Re: no oil? are you sure?

[Torqued]

An excerpt from Joe Vialls : Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam

"After more than 60 years of being enslaved, pillaged, and raped by the French and then by the Americans, the poor Vietnamese were told officially by American oil multinationals that their country was barren; that western 'cutting edge' technology had failed to find anything to help them recover financially from the mess left behind by American bombs, Agent Orange, and a host of other delightful gifts from Uncle Sam. This of course was exactly where America wanted the Vietnamese to be: desperately poor and unable to take action against their former invaders.

The Russians had other ideas and a very different approach. After telling the Vietnamese that the Americans had lied to them, oil experts were flown in from Moscow to prove this startling claim in a no-risk joint venture, meaning the Russians would provide all of the equipment and expertise free of charge, and only then take a percentage of the profits if oil was actually found and put into production. Vietnam had absolutely nothing to lose, and swiftly gave Russia the green light.

The Vietnamese White Tiger oil field was and is a raging success, currently producing high quality crude oil from basalt rock more than 17,000 feet below the surface of the earth, at 6,000 barrels per day per well. Through White Tiger, the Russians have assisted the Vietnamese to regain part of their self respect, while at the same time making them far less dependent on brutal western nations for food-aid handouts.

All of a sudden in a very small way, Vietnam has joined the exclusive club of oil producing nations, and a stream of cynical U.S. Senators and Congressmen have started making the long pilgrimage to Ho Chi Minh City in order to 'mend fences'. Predictably perhaps, the Vietnamese are very cool, and try hard to ignore their new American admirers.

Welcome to the White Tiger oil field in Vietnam. Observe the truly amazing oil flares, in an area the Americans officially declared 'barren' of oil reserves !

It is truly amazing how quickly good news travels [outside of CNN], and in a very short space of time China was also engaged in a joint super deep venture with Russia. Nor did it end there. ... intelligence reports that the Russians have already moved three deep-drilling rigs into impoverished North Korea, where they intend to repeat the Vietnamese production cycle by drilling thought solid granite and basalt, with not a single trace of the 'decaying marine life' so essential to blinkered western geologists for the 'accepted' production of crude oil. It may take a while, but ultimately the North Koreans will be able to go about their sovereign business without the Zionist Cabal in New York being able to blackmail them over a few ship loads of food-aid rice. Yes indeed, Korea will eventually have an oil surplus of its own, allowing it to tell the latest in a long line of terminally insane "New World Orders" to go to hell."

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[B2382F29]

The U.N. gave the conditions Iraq had to meet in order to give proof. Saddam failed to do it.

12/07/02 - Iraq gives 12000 pages of documentation to UN.
12/13/02 - The US (NOT U.N.) claim "missing answers"

Other countries fail to meet U.N. resolutions without being invaded

He was buying off France, Russia and Germany with the Oil for Food program to get them to lift the sanctions against him.

Wow, great, let the people die. Don't you think Saddam would be the last one to be affected if they had nothing to eat?

He had a WMD program ready to ramp up the moment the sanctions were lifted. Until then, he was playing a bluff. He was making the world think he had the WMD so they'd leave him alone, and he was bribing France, Russia and Germany to get the sanctions lifted so he could actually build a WMD program and not bluff anymore.

Wow, two things: 1. You admit he DIDN'T have a WMD program. 2. You say he wanted to build a WMD program, i assume you got that iformation via CNN.

The problem for Iraq was, Bush and not Gore got elected and 9/11 happened. Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda were well known and documented through most of the Clinton years, but Clinton's attitude toward terrorism had been to treat it as a law-enforcement issue.

I call bullshit. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented.

Yaddayadda.. Bush great Saddam evil ... yaddayadda

There are power-mad dictators in the world. Bush sure is one of them.

The Second Amendment says I can have nukes

[g0hare]

Why can't North Korea?

Hypocritical US

[markh1967]

Can anyone tell me why it's ok for the US to increase funding for bunker busting nuclear weapons but it isn't ok for other countries to research similar technologies.

Re:Hypocritical US

[EmagGeek]

The term "bunker busting nuclear weapons" makes absolutely no sense at all. For maximum effectiveness, nuclear payloads must be detonated at the correct altitude for their yield to synchronize the direct burst shockwave with the ground-bounce shockwave. There is no reason for a nuclear device to be delivered anywhere near the ground, let alone into a bunker. That's like putting out a match with a firehose. Sure, it puts out the match, but wastes most of the water.

Re:Hypocritical US

[CarrionBird]

Because the US is not likely to sell them to the highest black market bidder. N. Korea is, likewise Iran.

We also aren't going to be nuking canada or mexico anytime soon, but Iran may just lob a nuke at Isreal as soon as they get the ablity. Yes, it would be stupid, but they may do it anyway.

n. korea nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

I say good for them. If we can have them so can they. We are the threat to the world now and they do need protection against us. I don't trust this country either.
http://images.d3ez.net/different_asshole. jpg

The US doesn't own everything

[PhYrE2k2]

The reality is that the US is the largest holder of nuclear weapons in the world right now. The US is then the one telling everyone else to disarm their weapons? Not only that, but the US has just invaded TWO (read: TWO) countries in the past TWO YEARS, with eyes set on a third (Iran)- each of the two invaded showed no evidence of having nuclear weapons of any kind, and really posed a minimal threat overall towards the US (in comparison to the retailiation).

So can you blame them for hanging on to some weapons? Either the whole world disarms at once (creating well... peace) or nobody's going to do it... especially with a president who lies to his entire country to further his personal agenda.

N. Korea is its own country governed by its own laws and operating its own military. Until it uses these weapons against another country, we can't say a thing.

We all know the power of nukes- nobody will blindly send a nuke unless the US is dumb enough to go in there- oh crap- we're screwed!

-M

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL!! It's Yankee foreign policy that's causing the problems.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Pxtl]

Screw that logic. I can't stand Bush, and a complete rabid left-winger - but that kind of moral relatavism is lunacy. We're not talking about "they just do things their way over there" - we're talking about a man who lets his people starve, throws suspected dissidents, their families, friends, vague acquantances, pets, etc. into death camps, and generally runs his country like a plantation. He makes Saddam look like Mother Teresa.

The man is an amoral lunatic, and he's got The Bomb. Abusive dictatorships are a blight on this planet, and nuclear weapons let them get entrenched.

Now, people keep saying this, that, and the next about Clinton's reactor deal: "Bill Chamberlain gave N.K. teh bomb!" "Noes! They were stopping teh Chinese for giving them teh biggar bomb!" - does anyone have any actual _facts_ on the subject?

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the whole world disarms at once (creating well... peace)

I honestly don't think Humans are capable of peace. Survival traits such as greed and agressiveness were encoded into the Human genome a long time ago. To have ideal 'peace on earth' would require either Humans to leave the place (either to go somewhere else or to be exterminated) or be geneticly reprogrammed.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[zbuffered]

just invaded TWO (read: TWO) countries in the past TWO YEARS

What was the other one?

And by the way, we can say and do whatever the heck we want with NK. We're still technically at war with them.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that the US is the largest holder of nuclear weapons in the world right now.

Irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The US is then the one telling everyone else to disarm their weapons?

Yes, so what? Hopefully you aren't implying a tu quoque fallacy.

Not only that, but the US has just invaded TWO (read: TWO) countries in the past TWO YEARS, with eyes set on a third (Iran)- each of the two invaded showed no evidence of having nuclear weapons of any kind, and really posed a minimal threat overall towards the US (in comparison to the retailiation).

Sometimes actions have multiple contributing causes. Since we're mortal beings in a finite continuum, this sometimes causes the phenomenon of 'prioritization'. You may have even experienced this yourself.

So can you blame them for hanging on to some weapons?

We're talking nukes here, son. Doomsday devices. Calling them weapons is accurate in the same sense that a stone wheel and an aircraft carrier are both accurately called vehicles. But otherwise you're ignoring the scope of the matter. No other weapon has the potential to end all life on the planet.

So yes -- in the case of nuclear weapons, the stockpiling of which especially in the case of incompatible ideologies and/or cultures could trigger MAD -- you can blame "them" for hanging on to some "weapons".

Put it this way: you're stuck in a jail cell with another prisoner who's acting erratically. Think Charles Manson. Is the best solution for you to have a gun, for you both to have guns, or for neither of you to have a gun?

N. Korea is its own country governed by its own laws and operating its own military. Until it uses these weapons against another country, we can't say a thing.

Wrong. Again you fail to acknowledge the scope. These are not mere weapons, they are potential triggers of an MAD scenario which could make all life on the planet extinct. No other weapons fall into that class.

"Im ba l'hargekha, hashkem l'hargo"

nobody will blindly send a nuke unless the US is dumb enough to go in there

You moron, have you heard of suicide bombers? Kami Kaze? 9-11? There are people who don't give a damn about the consequences, or for whom the consequence of death is worth it so long as their enemies fall with them. And you think THEY should get to set the terms of who triggers MAD first? You're either stupid or insane.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[PhYrE2k2]

I have no doubt that North Korea is an abusive dictatorship or that we should all be worried. Nonetheless, the second something goes wrong, the rest of the world will be on it. I don't see N. Korea making a war anytime soon. They know they're a prime target for US attack, so they protect themselves. Send a nuke our way and it will be an entirely different story.

The reality that you must realize is that every country is able to run itself as it chooses to govern within its own borders. Period. You can sanction someone to pressure them (cut off trade for example), but can not push them around like a younger brother. The US has become a strong economic leader, but don't get cocky about it. The US is in a good position with strong allies to the north and south with water all around- but again, this is just fortune.

North Korea within its borders can do what it wants. Bush has the nukes- and apparently they are doing the same thing: 'bush has the nukes and has been invading countries like a fat man on cake- we should be ready and protect ourselves'. Until one of those gets fired anywhere outside of North Korea, or until the environmental impact harms others- we can't say anything.

While the western world sure does like democracy and freedom and commercialization, that doesn't mean the rest of the world gives a damn what we think.

-M

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[PhYrE2k2]

Afganistan and Iraq.
- While Afganistan was for a group of people: 'Afganistan is harbouring terrorists and we`re going in to flush them out'.

-M

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[PhYrE2k2]

Oh right- I forgot... Iraq was used as an excuse and coverup for never actually finding Osama.. and having him produce videos afterwards to prove it.

-M

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[salvorHardin]

You moron, have you heard of suicide bombers? Kami Kaze? 9-11? There are people who don't give a damn about the consequences, or for whom the consequence of death is worth it so long as their enemies fall with them.

Not quite true. These people want to be martyrs to their cause. They're willing to die in order to further that cause. They will give their life for what they perceive to be the greater good of their people/religion/etc. Destroying their own entire society, even with the proviso that their enemies suffer too, is just not going to be on the agenda. It's easy to label things as 'insane' when we don't understand them, but it's not a very productive or insightful exercise.
Know thy enemy, knowledge is power, et cetera. If that wasn't true, no government would invest in military intelligence services. Blind ignorance and misleading propaganda will only get you so far, and usually in the wrong direction.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Ced_Ex]

Put it this way: you're stuck in a jail cell with another prisoner who's acting erratically. Think Charles Manson. Is the best solution for you to have a gun, for you both to have guns, or for neither of you to have a gun?

That's a pretty interesting scenario. But what if Charles already has a gun, and you only have the parts to make the gun? I'm pretty sure you'd be secretly assembling it behind his back, and when completed, you'll tell him, "Look, don't be waving that gun in my face, 'cause I've got one too now, so back off!"

That's exactly how NK is feeling right now. And to their credit, NK hasn't done anything with their military outside their own borders unlike the US/British coalition.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[Ced_Ex]

I honestly don't think Humans are capable of peace. Survival traits such as greed and agressiveness were encoded into the Human genome a long time ago. To have ideal 'peace on earth' would require either Humans to leave the place (either to go somewhere else or to be exterminated) or be geneticly reprogrammed.

That's not entirely true. For humans to have peace amongst themselves, they need to have a common enemy. And as crazy as this sounds, aliens would be the solution to that. For any alien thinking of coming to earth in peace... haha... good luck.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[salvorHardin]

That's exactly how NK is feeling right now.

Spot on! And, the fact that Iraq didn't have nukes, and got trounced, whereas North Korea likely does, and hasn't been invaded, is the surest sign to nations like Iran and North Korea, that they absolutely positively need nuclear weapons in order to deter would-be invaders. I'm not saying that I support commie dictators having incredibly dangerous weapons, but you can't uninvent nuclear technology, or change the laws of physics so it doesn't work anymore; and the more you try to suppress others from using that technology, the more they're going to resent it, and you, for trying to do so.

Re:The US doesn't own everything

[CaptainAvatar]

Yeah but the invasion of Afghanistan was at the end of 2001, ie more than two years ago :P

They have nothing to fear....

[whitroth]

According to the text of their statement, reported on the BBC, they listened to Bush's Coronation, er, Inaugural speech, and his State of the Union, and what adminitstration officials are saying to Congress, and concluded that Bush wants to overthrow the regime.

Why on *earth* would they be afraid that the US might bomb them, or even invade them? I just *can't* Iraq, er, imagine why they'd think this of the US.

So, who here is enlisting so that they can fight in a nuclear war agasist North Korea, which of course will result in a few casualties...like fallout all over the west coast of the US and Canada? Who here, that's in the US, is offering to pay more taxes for this?

Right, just as I thought.

mark

This is NOT NEWS

[OriginalArlen]

For god's sake folks, have you been under a rock for the last few years? This is in NO WAY news to anyone who takes any interest in foreign policy, nuclear proliferation, or even watches the evening news for heaven's sake. Look at the datestamps on these BBC stories, just as a quick f'rinstance.

Right, back to work.

kim is a bully but Bush is even stupid bully

[panxing_personal]

kim is a bully Bush is a stupid bully Maybe Bush will become a little smart this time.

Re:kim is a bully but Bush is even stupid bully

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance can be fixed but stupid is forever.

3 words - WORLD'S LARGEST ARMY

[Psyqlone]

...not in North Korea, but across the border. We tangled with them in the past.

Man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, they aren't a problem for American military might. Then again, they shouldn't have been a problem 50 years ago. The Japanese handled the Chinese easily enough between 1937-1945, right? ...and the Allies (mostly the U.S.) dealt with the Japanese. Hardened and experienced Americans should have had an easy time of it 5-6 years later.

...but it didn't work out that way.

Behind the scenes, our negotiators and theirs probably discussed what might happen if we opened up yet another war zone. My first guess is that they'd have none of it.

Remember also that the U.S. STILL has a military presence in Korea without an exit strategy to speak of.

Re:3 words - WORLD'S LARGEST ARMY

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Japanese handled the Chinese easily enough between 1937-1945, right?"

They got their ass handed to them. They killed a lot of Chinese, but they didn't "win."

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually use to think that it was just fringe elements of the party that believed that. But what I have since learned is they are the ones who gave him his political education when he was campaigning for his father. And he believes it. He really deeply believes in it. And that is not a comforting thought. I've always thought that faith, if not religion proper, could be that beacon in uncertain waters, and resivior of strength to draw on to be a better person when by all reason the rest of the world should carry the day. Not for him. For him, it's permission to abdicate responsibility. Being rich and powerful isn't a burden from God to figure out how to do good, it's a reward for being such a special person and he should enjoy it. Now I don't know what bible he's been reading.... But it's safe to say our versions differ considerably.

Yeah, "Nuclear Launch Detected"

[HungSoLow]

The only nukes they have are in StarCraft.

YABA - yet another blackmail attempt

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the back drop: Rice is in Europe discussing Iran. The Bushies have leaked that invasion of Iran is an option. Now Conde is sweet talking the Europeans to help --- translation: this means having the Europeans pay money to Iran to get them to stop.

The N. Koreans are trying to get attention. They want to be bought off again. Their country is an economic junk yard.

Remember how they grabbed a piece of the Olympics held in S. Korea by talking tough? Remember how they kidnapped rich family members from Japan for ransom? They are trying to extort more money.

I have no doubt they can make dirty bombs. I see no reason to do anything but ignore them and let the multi-lateral talks continue. Let them demonstrate what they actually have.

Re:Go ask Ward Churchill

[gelfling]

I mean after alll what with the circle jerk of 'it's alllllll our own damn fault' I was just wondering aloud what radicals would say if their own house was the target? Hmmm? Or is coffehouse Marxism as radical as you posers get?

Sure they do, and I am Little red Riding Hood

[zagatka]

You know, Marx said: "history repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce." Coupla years ago when USA was preparing to attack Iraq, N Korea said the same thing. Yet USA ignored them and invaded Iraq. Well we ALL KNOW what happened there. Exact same thing us happening today, just change Q to N. USA will NOT do anything about N Korea. Again. Most Americans must be total idiots or total hypocrates not to see how Bush is operating. Frankly I don't know which scares me more.

Woah

[Anonymous Coward]

long time no see --rev

Re:Woah

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed :)

-- spiralx

Re:Woah

[Too Many Secrets]

spirlax!!!!

*kissy faces*

--rev

name one

[Fuzzums]

name one big nation with nukes, sarin, a big army, a hostile attitude and a moron as president.

the influence of that nation, at the moment, is bigger than that of NK...

hot air

[iggymanz]

Let's see a test, otherwise NK is just blustering.

The US would still have invaded.

[khasim]

Look at all the other countries that are in violation of UN sanctions.

Yet we don't invade them.

We did it to control the oil.

Oh yeah, the neocons start whining

[Anonymous Coward]

They went ahead and build the nukes after Bush in all his glorious stupidity stopped the direct talks with and aid transfer to NK.

That isn't to say that Bush is responsible for NK having nuclear weapons, NK or rather it's disgusting leadership are, but Bush is responsible for dealing with this threat in a wrong way.

Now of course not everything was fine under Clinton, but if you compare the situation then and now it sure has gone downhill like there is no tommorrow.
There used to be talks, there used to be inspectors, there used to be cameras.
Now there are no talks (because Bush refuses to talk), there are no inspectors and there are no cameras but there are nuclear weapons. Congratulations, well done.

Seriously, I'm getting so sick of this constant neocon whining if somebody dares to critizise Bush. Wake up, this is not kindergarten, where you start to cry because someone said something bad about your favorite toy, this is politics and with real nuclear weapons, so it's pretty serious.

Jeez.

Re:hardline approach

[dingDaShan]

What a surprise... A country that, instead of helping its own people, puts much of its resources towards military, develops nuclear weapons. We are all shocked at this. George W adopted a hard line stance towards them because they backed out on the treaty. His stance was not effective enough. Perhaps if the rest of the world would have stood by him, then something could have been done. At any rate, hey were not held responsible by the rest of the world. This neglect to enforce treaties is just the thing that will tear the UN apart and make it as effective as the League of Nations. North Korea attaining nuclear weapons exposes the larger problem of the lack of treaty enforcement by modern democracies... just so the current leaders can get reelected.

Slashdot

[northcat]

Why is this story on Slashdot? Because this is big news in USA? Outside USA this is not as big as The South-east Asian Tsunami or the USA World Trade Center crashes.

Re:Slashdot

[gabbarbhai]

Why is this story on Slashdot?

Well, because it's news for everyone (including nerds) and stuff that definitely matters..

Re:Slashdot

[hackstraw]

Why is this story on Slashdot? Because this is big news in USA? Outside USA this is not as big as The South-east Asian Tsunami or the USA World Trade Center crashes.

This is what we Americans hate about the rest of the world's population. Noone but us seems to know what is important and right for the world.

That was sarcasm just in case you could not tell. I know that sarcasm can be a difficult in writing, especially if its not in your native language.

To me, this is not news of any kind. NK has nuclear weapons. Oh, I'm scared. I mean here in the US there are gun toting thugs that illegally carry concealed weapons all the time that could shoot me at any time, but I'm not scared of them either.

Just about every person in the world has the capacity to take out another human. Fortunately, its not that common.

Re:Slashdot

[smithmc]

Why is this story on Slashdot? Because this is big news in USA? Outside USA this is not as big as The South-east Asian Tsunami or the USA World Trade Center crashes.

Um, I'll bet there are some folks in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. who are at least mildly interested to know that the neighboring poor country run by the lunatic dictator now claims to have nukes. I mean, it certainly would interest me, but hey, I could be wrong.

North Korea, the exception

[dingDaShan]

How can one poor little country in Asia make the entire world quiver and quake in fear? The answer is simple... just ignore the rest of the world and don't cooperate. There is no worries about sanctions or anything... the entire economic output is for the military anyways. Don't worry about starving people, the military will prevent any rebellions. Don't worry about foreign policy, it doesn't matter if people don't like you because they are all pacifists that won't do anything. They won't enforce sanctions or treaties, won't take any effective actions, and instead, they will point fingers at each other and blame the current administration of their countries. I applaud North Korea for exposing a major flaw in the modern international political system. Bravo.

Washington is very surprised by N. Korea's pullout

[Drog]

I just finished posting this same story (but with more detail and more links) on my own site, The World Forum. Here's a blurb from it:

This probably come as a surprise to Washington, since Bush seemed to deliberately use a softer tone towards North Korea in his State of the Union address, saying only that Washington was "working closely with governments in Asia to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions." That's buch better than three years ago when he branded North Korea part of the "axis of evil".

Analysts in South Korea had predicted that the absence of harsh words would help restart the nuclear talks, since several weeks earlier North Korea had announced they were willing to return to six-party nuclear talks and would treat the United States as a friend if Washington would stop slandering their leader Kim Jong Il.

Further evidence that this came as a surprise to Washington came four hours before the official pullout statement, when a top Bush administration official told the New York Times that North Korea's return to the nuclear talks was expected by all other participants -- the United States, Japan, South Korea, Russia and China.

As a shameless self-plug, if you like to discuss stories like this, I urge you to sign up on The World Forum. It's goal is to become a major international forum where people from all walks of life and of all political perspectives can discuss politics and world issues, expressing their different points of view rationally and constructively. It's starting to get a lot of hits due to being prominently displayed in Google News, but it needs a much larger user base of people willing to participate in discussions if it is to succeed.

Interesting story (from the archives)

[inKubus]

SEOUL, South Korea - A large explosion occurred in the northern part of North Korea, sending a huge mushroom cloud into the air on an important anniversary of the communist regime, a South Korean news agency reported Sunday.

The South Korean government said it was trying to confirm the report.

The Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified diplomatic source in Seoul, said the explosion happened at 11 a.m. local time Thursday in Yanggang province near the border with China. The blast in Kim Hyong Jik county left a crater big enough to be noticed by a satellite, the source said.

"We understand that a mushroom-shaped cloud about 2.2 miles to 2.5 miles in diameter was monitored during the explosion," the source said. Yonhap described the source as "reliable."

Thursday was the anniversary of the 1948 foundation of the communist regime. Leader Kim Jong Il uses the occasion to stage performances and other events to bolster loyalty among the impoverished North Korean population.

Experts have speculated that North Korea might use a major anniversary to conduct a nuclear-related test, though there was no immediate indication that the reported explosion on Thursday was linked to Pyongyang's efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

"It remains unclear whether it was a deliberately planned nuclear test or it was just an accident," the source in Seoul told Yonhap. "But it doesn't seem to be an ordinary explosion."

The source said the explosion took place "not far" from a military base that holds North Korea's Taepo-dong ballistic missiles. North Korea, which has a large missile arsenal and more than a million soldiers, is dotted with military installations.

The damage and crater left by the explosion in Kim Hyong Jik county was big enough to be noticed by a satellite, a source in Beijing told Yonhap.

North Korea was founded on Sept. 9, 1948. Leader Kim Jong Il uses the anniversary to stage performances and other events to bolster loyalty among the impoverished North Korean population.

South Korea's Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said the government was trying to confirm the report about the explosion.

"I am not aware of details such as the size of the damage," he was quoted as saying by Yonhap after a National Security Council meeting.

On Saturday, North Korea said recent revelations that South Korea conducted secret nuclear experiments involving uranium and plutonium made the communist state more determined to pursue its own nuclear programs.

The South Korean experiments, conducted in 1982 and 2000, were likely to further complicate the already stalled six-nation talks aimed at dismantling the North's nuclear development. South Korea has said the experiments were purely for research and did not reflect a desire to develop weapons.

On April 22, train wagons at a railway station exploded in the North Korean town of Ryongchon, killing 160 people and injuring an estimated 1,300, according to some estimates. The blast was believed to have been sparked by a train laden with oil and chemicals that hit power lines.

The explosion on Thursday was bigger than the Ryongchon train explosion, which devastated a wide area, Yonhap said.

Article Date: Saturday, September 11, 2004 (9:26pm)

BTW, people should archive more news on their own hard drives.

Poor Washington

[krautcanman]

What did Washington ever to to get singled-out? I mean, really. You'd expect the N. Koreans to hate the entire US, not just one poor little state.

Re:Poor Washington

[iggymanz]

it's even worse than that, they're just talking aboutt that stinky east coast slum that had that loser drug dealer mayor...wasn't it called Washington District of Crime or something...????

My brain hurts.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

We invade the guy who doesn't have 'em, but who killed some of his people. In the process we kill a few hundred thousand.

We let the guy who DOES have them and lets his people starve to death sit around in his palace while we throw money and food at them.

I like how this works.

Re:My brain hurts.

[CodeRx]

In the process we kill a few hundred thousand.

Are you kidding me? Even the anti-war extremists at Iraq Body Count say < 18,000 civilians killed - and they include civilians killed by insurgents, so the number killed by US forces is even lower. Talk about being ill-informed.

Re:My brain hurts.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

You can believe who you want to. There's reports that put the deaths in numbers approaching 200,000.

You can go back to watching Fox News now.

To summarize it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr. Strangelove: Sir! I have a plan!
[standing up from his wheelchair]
Dr. Strangelove: Mein Führer! I can walk!

where to begin

[sp3c1alK]

This has nothing to do with ego for the most part. To quote The Rock (the movie, not the wrestler), nuclear arms are something we wish we could uninvent. It's a burden AND a responsibility that the nuclear powers don't want (most of them anyway) but must jealously guard.

Idealism is a good trait, but there has to be some realism to balance it out. We've reduced our arsenals but we'll never be rid of all these weapons in our lifetimes. If we try to 'lead by example' in this case by disarming, we would lead the world to disaster. I hate to sound like a hawk, but I really believe this.

Sometimes, we HAVE to be the bad guy.

Re:where to begin

[polar red]

I'll refrase that :
And who have the US the right to be the judge of who is good and who is bad ? very simple : by being the bully.

A bully will sooner or later get a punch. In this case a nuclear punch.

Hurry up Bezos!

[jsin]

Jeff, hurry up and get that space program off the ground so we can get off this rock before there's nothing left!

Attack North Korea?

[dantheman82]

The dictator that heads up that country is absolutely out of his mind. I'd say "diplomacy" and infiltration (+ possible coup attempt from within) sound more feasible. KJI will lob bombs on S. Korea, Japan, whoever just to intimidate if we ever attack.

Oh, and can we stop with the comparisons with Iraq already? Or maybe you can show how we can turn back the clock to Iraq as it was before? Don't forget to kill off the Iraqi governing council, reinstate Saddam as president, and rebuild his death camps and cover over the mass graves as an added favor...

Good for them!

[m3talsling3r]

If more people had nukes, the US wouldn't be so prone to bully around.

Plus it's about time we stop being hypocritical. We have nukes for the same reasons.

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Al-Qiada had nukes?

Would you be so happy then?

What happens if a country like NK sells a nuke to AQ?

Will you still be preaching 'Good for them! Hey, they trashed New York and the Pentagon - but now they have nuclear bombs! They SURE won't touch us now!'

Re:Good for them!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Abdul Qader Khan, "father" of the Pakistani nuclear program, gave nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, possibly also Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia?

What would you do? You'd probably call Pakistan a "great ally in the war on terror" and ignore it, then go off and beat up on Saddam Hussein to make yourself feel better.

Re:Good for them!

[Shihar]

Try and taking the 'racist fuck' level down a little. Abdul Qader Khan is a Pakistani. Pakistan is a nation. I know the two are confusing, but just try and follow along. When a nation does something good, you can praise the nation. If a person does something good, you can praise the person. If a person does something bad, that doesn't suddenly make everyone who happens to be of the some nationality suddenly evil.

Making blanket statements based off of the actions of a few is ignorant and stupid. Germany has neo-Nazis within its borders. I suppose we should declare all Germans facist?

Re:Bullshit

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yep, it's the same reasoning used participants in a mob to justify lynching. the same defence used by people who participate in genocide. They believe they can absolve themselves of guilt and blame everything on their God, Fuhrer or Grand Wizard.

Sad really. Good luck with your slightly more enlightened version.

other side

[Paradigma11]

official KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm well, news is propably not the right expression for it :)

Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

The question of whether or not the DPRK deserves nuclear weapons begs this question: Does the DPRK government have a right to exist?

The answer: no.

The DPRK is a brutish, thuggish, criminal (in the literal sense) despotic regime. A tiny elite minority of sycophants surrounding Kim tyrannize and starve millions of Koreans.

No such regime has any political, moral or ethical right to exist.

The deliberately ignorant naivete of those who argue that the DPRK is threatened by the U.S., using the war the north launched more than 50 years ago and refuses to settle as an excuse, is toadyism in exterme form.

If organizations like the UN, ASEAN, etc., are so dead set on helping people, why haven't they done anything to get rid of these people? All they do is beg aid money from the West to feed and support the victims of these criminals. But, without eliminating the victimizers, this aid is reminiscent of medieval Europeans dancing and singing to stop the plagque, while the rats feasted on their waste in the streets.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "Special Meat" and Korea. Think long-pig, the other other white meat.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[KungF00]

Let's not the millions of poor who can't even feed themselves.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

> why haven't they done anything to get rid of these people?

Because it's none of their businesses. Inner state affairs.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

No such regime has any political, moral or ethical right to exist.

As the DPRK holds enough power to make the citizens do what they want, they can legitimately call themselves the government.

Just because they weren't democratically elected, it doesn't mean they aren't the government. It might not be nice, you might think that it's immoral, but the fact is that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

The deliberately ignorant naivete of those who argue that the DPRK is threatened by the U.S., using the war the north launched more than 50 years ago and refuses to settle as an excuse, is toadyism in exterme form.

You have a lot of nerve calling people ignorant when you ignore the fact that the USA has been invading countries and has publically talked about how North Korea is part of the problem that they are in the process of "solving". Any rational person would seek a means of defending themselves against the USA if they were in North Korea's position.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

OF course, the DPRK government exists. But it has no right to exist.

No government imposed without the consent of the people it governs is legitimate.

The leaders of the DPRK are directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Koreans, beginning with the Korean War. They are the causal agent for the continued misery and starvation of the North Korean people.

There is nothing wrong with "invading" a counttry when the objective is to improve the lot of the people in those countries by removing murderous thugs from power. I don't like the fact that only the U.S. has the fortitude to do that, but organizations like the UN won't do it because they are moral cripples who are quite willing to sacrifice the welfare of a nation's population rather than challenge the alleged legitimacy of the bastards at the top.

This sick UN/European philosophy would seenboth Europe and the U.S. hang back and watch, with fingers wagging, as Hitler's armies conquered and massacred.

If you really believe that the simple existence of the DPRK government assigns it a legitimacy equal to that of a democratically selected government, while people in the DPRK are reduced to eating grass and tree bark, then I suggest you examine your own ethical precepts.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

No government imposed without the consent of the people it governs is legitimate.

That was my whole point: perhaps not morally legitimate, but certainly politically legitimate.

There is nothing wrong with "invading" a counttry when the objective is

Newsflash: the government of North Korea doesn't care about what the USA's objectives will be should they be invaded.

This sick UN/European philosophy would seenboth Europe and the U.S. hang back and watch, with fingers wagging, as Hitler's armies conquered and massacred.

Hitler invaded a number of countries. The USA-led war on Afghanistan was not in response to an invasion. The USA-led war on Iraq was not in response to an invasion.

If you really believe that the simple existence of the DPRK government assigns it a legitimacy equal to that of a democratically selected government, while people in the DPRK are reduced to eating grass and tree bark, then I suggest you examine your own ethical precepts.

You weren't just talking about ethics though! You said "No such regime has any political, moral or ethical right to exist." I wouldn't argue that the DPRK was morally or ethically legitimate, but it's certainly politically legitimate.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah so, since Korea was previously ruled by a king, that justified Japanese invasion since it wasn't specifically through the consent of the people?

And invading North Korea would be through the consent of the people?

Nice set of morals you got there.

In a word: blind.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

No, the fact that Korean was a monarchy does not justify an invasion by the Japanese monarchy.

I didn't say it did.

Nor did I say an invasion of the DPRK was justfied.

I said the DRPK has no right to exist.

I said organizations like the UN have failed to eliminate the DPRK and similar regimes.

Like a typical troll, you've misrepresented my post.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is nothing wrong with "invading" a country when the objective is to improve the lot of the people in those countries by removing murderous thugs from power."

Yeah, kind of hard to misrepresent that.

And so how do you propose to "eliminate the victimizers" without invasion? What the fuck gives you the moral authority to make decisions for the Korean people?

I just love it when you call me names :)

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor did I say an invasion of the DPRK was justfied.

You called the UN "moral cripples" for not doing it, and called it a sick philosophy. Changing your tune pretty quickly, aren't you?

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

Funny, I haven't heard about any elections in the DPRK lately.

The only people who have the "moral authority" to make decisions about how they are governed are the people that will be governed.

The people of the DPRK have no ability to make those decisions because the DPRK government has repressed those rights for more than 50 years.

The only legitimate way for people to make those decisions is via a democratic election.

In a modern and successful totalitarian regime, like the DPRK, the state can effectively suppress the possibility of violent revolution, so even that avenue is blocked.

So, with no way for a repressed people to exercise their right to govern themselves, wither through elections or revolution, few alternatives remain but external intervention.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

I condemned the UN for not working to change the regime in the DPRK. You decided that meant invasion, not me.

Name anything the UN has done to bring democracy to the DPRK other other than handwring and beg the regime to allow other people to try a feed some of the people it is starving.

As with others, your defense of the very forces and organziations sustaining regimes like the DPRK is an example of a twisted, selfish uncomprehending view of the world.

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[Anonymous Coward]

I condemned the UN for not working to change the regime in the DPRK. You decided that meant invasion, not me.

No, that's what you said.

There is nothing wrong with "invading" a counttry when the objective is to improve the lot of the people in those countries by removing murderous thugs from power. I don't like the fact that only the U.S. has the fortitude to do that, but organizations like the UN won't do it because they are moral cripples

The bolded "that" refers to invasion. The bolded "it" refers to invasion. Not "working to change the regime". Invasion. Read your own fucking words. Why are you lying about what you said instead of rationalising it? Perhaps because you can't rationalise it?

Re:Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist

[reallocate]

I'm not rationalizing or lieing.

I said I don't like the fact that only the U.S. has the requisite fortitude, and that the UN lacks it. I'd rather see the UN take on the role of actively working to eliminate repressive totalitarian regimes, even if that means invasion when other approaches fail.

When a government represses its people, when it prohibits free elections, when it successfully blocks any possibility of revolution, then what other avenue remains beyond external intervention of some form? (Remember, "external intervention" is not synonymous with "armed invasion".)

When conditions like that exist, those of us who are fortunate enough not to live in such countries have personal ethical choices to make: Shall we support efforts to free them or shall we preserve our own sense of moral purity by looking the other way?

So, the question for you and others who believe as you do: How would you free the people of the DPRK, since it is abvious that they cannot?

Where was this quote?

[TheConfusedOne]

I remember Hans Blix being quoted as saying that Iraq had failed to account for a large quantity of declared WMD stock piles.

Many people seem to have gotten the whole burden of proof thing ass-end-to. It was Iraq's responsibility to live up to the agreements it made when the cease-fire was negotiated. Iraq singularly failed in that matter and despite numerous warnings, second, third, and fourth chances they continued to play cat and mouse over it.

Sometimes the mouse gets eaten.

Re:Where was this quote?

[Richard_at_work]

Here you go:

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

From USA Today. These reports superceeded the beliefs on Blix's part that there was hidden material (which was more of a paraphrase than an actual quote). The report in which Blix is supposed to have made the quote you refer to was given on February 14, 2003. The report in which I quote from was given one month later. Things change given time.

Oh shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm about to move to LA.

Gangs

[ChrisMaple]

This reminds me very much of an interview with a violent gang member, about 6 years ago. He claimed gang members had to have guns, to defend themselves against the police.

Re:Gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is the police? Until now North Korea has been attacked by the US, and has US sooldiers just outside their borders, North Korea did not attack the US

Re:Gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... US is the police and the rest of the world are the gangs.
Interesting thougths.....

Re:Gangs

[SouthOfHeaven]

interesting is one way of looking at it, id say disturbing.

Re:Gangs

[powderbluedictator]

So does that mean the US is the police?

Re:Gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

Gangs usually exist as part of some society that as a whole, recognizes the authority of the police force, which is hopefully worthy of that trust.

Re:Gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the police are corrupt?

Re:Gangs

[benglish]

Team America: World Police heh.

Re:Gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was this violent "gang" member? Daryl Gates? Sam Yorty? Richard Daley? How 'bout George Bush? Maybe we should talk to Pedro Obregon about violent gang members. Ooops, too late...He's dead...Shot in the back by a damn cop. Sometimes it's true. We do need to defend ourslves against the cops. As they say, No justice, no peace.

Re:Gangs

[tunah]

People really believe the "Team America: World Police" bullshit don't they?

Re:Gangs

[katharsis83]

This is also the same argument that supporters of the 2nd Amendment give. Guns are needed to protect them against a more intrusive police state.

Odd how those people at the same time support American strong-arming other nations. Keep in mind that America is the only nation in the history of the world to have used nuclear weapons in war.

My coverage

[wikinerd]

I just finished writing my article on this topic. Don't forget to visit the links I give in the end which include information about the ranges of North Korean missiles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Welcome yet another barking mad dog to the club!

[Baldrson]

When small states acquire nuclear weapons as security against larger states, their military credibility depends critically on their militancy -- their willingness to use those weapons in a first strike. This is the barking mad dog strategic posture:

A report 11 in 1976 of a CIA briefing claimed that the Israeli arsenal of 13 weapons was prepared for possible use at the start of the 1973 war. Defence Minister Moshe Dyan was quoted in the report as justifying the Israeli nuclear option as, 'Israel has no choice, with our manpower we cannot physically go on acquiring more and more tanks and more and more planes'. The readiness to use their nuclear weapons to fight, if they are in danger of being defeated, indicates that the 'no first use' policy is rhetoric.

Now a big difference between Israel and North Korea is that it is believable that North Korean command will sacrifice much of its population during retaliation. Moreover, give the US's open borders policy, North Korea's doesn't need missiles to deliver nuclear warheads to the most critical central control structuers of the US. If they were to strike during a time of civil disturbance arising from the neocon use of immigrant floods to justify protecting US citizens with "Homeland Security" in exchange for their rights, it could shatter that ideological and political con-game of open-borders combined with the tyranny of "Homeland Security" and cause a shooting war between the employer class and the working class.

Israel's likely targets, on the other hand, are far less fragile than the highly centralized and corrupted US. Moreover, compared to North Korea, Israel has something resembling accountability to its Jewish citizens, most of whom would prefer not to be the offering under a real holocaust:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :

Holocaust \Hol"o*caust\, n. [L. holocaustum, Gr. ?, neut. of ?,
?, burnt whole; "o'los whole + kaysto`s burnt, fr. kai`ein to
burn (cf. Caustic): cf. F. holocauste.]

1. A burnt sacrifice; an offering, the whole of which was
consumed by fire, among the Jews and some pagan nations.
--Milton.

2. Sacrifice or loss of many lives, as by the burning of a
theater or a ship.

Note: [An extended use not authorized by careful writers.]

Re: no oil? are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

Peel back the rhetoric and bias, and therein lies a grain of truth: After all that bloodshed, the US basically abandoned Vietnam for lack of oil, Russia provided Vietnam with wealth in the form of that oil we thought it lacked, and now Vietnam is "lost" to us as a friend.

Re:The koreans are right

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing you just proved is that you don't know much at all about world events or the people that live in them.

You might want to take a few minutes and open a couple history books, watch the news, etc.

North Korea will never give up their nukes

[Drog]

I do not think North Korea will ever give up their nukes. Countries have stopped their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology in the past, but have any of them stopped after already building nuclear weapons? Not that I'm aware of. Why should they? Nuclear weapons demand respect, pure and simple. Owning them is the best deterrent against being invaded and everybody knows it. In North Korea's case, that deterrent is even more pronounced considering that total war is their declared strategy to counter a US preemptive attack, using both massive conventional warfare and weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea's military capability is extremely strong, and some analysts think they are one of the few nations that could conceivably engage in a total, all-out war with the United States. They have both the military strength and the political will.

An assessment of their military capabilities can be found here, although I think its estimate of North Korea already having 100 nuclear warheads is probably exaggerated. Not that anybody knows for sure. North Korea is one of the most secretive nations on the planet.

The Nuclear Weapons Archive

[yorkpaddy]

Check this site out. It has a history of all recorded nuclear weapons tests. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html

Re:The Nuclear Weapons Archive

[CaptainAvatar]

Ahh, that site takes me back! I used to be the webmaster of the host site; I inadvertantly tipped off the head of the physics department about it (who didn't even know what "the world wide web" was, let alone that we had a website - to be fair, this was 1995 or 1996). He thought it was glorifying nuclear weapons and I had to tell the maintainer to shut it down. How shortsighted - it's thrived since then and is a great resource for information; it would have been a great asset to attract traffic to the departmental site.

WW3 Begins in...

[arkanoid]

3... 2... 1... And all life on Earth extincts...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Defunct Search and Replace

[KhanReaper]

This time I hope that the CIA and NSA actually use the correct search and replace filter, unlike last time, when reviewing their intelligence:

sed -e "s/Iran/Iraq/"

Apply optional filter, if necessary:

sed -e "s/WMD in Iran/WMD in Iraq/"
sed -e "s/Iranian WMD/Iraqi WMD/"

Big f****** deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? I never understood the arguments of the "civilised" world! USA have nuclear weapons and moronic politicians, Korea has nuclear weapons and moronic politicians, what's the difference? Is there any rank system for the countries that should have nuclear weapons and they keep it secret from Korea/Iran/whatever-evil-enemy? Please! If a country threatens another country, what should stop the country that wants to defend itself, from having any means available?

Fallacy Alert

[quarkscat]

The USA has had NORAD and the DEW line for about 50 years, Space Command and the KH-nn satellite system for nearly 40 years. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) will not be launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at the USA without the threat of total destruction.

Missiles that the DPRK currently has can travel nearly 7,000 miles, which puts more than 1/3 of the USA within their range - think Boulder CO and Cheyenne Mountain, and not just Hawaii.

The DPRK also has submarines sold to them by our friends the Russians - they aren't nuke powered
but they are quiet. The best-guess scenario would be that the DPRK delivers a few nukes by submarine to the USA's west coast, or smuggles them across the nearly wide-open borders. Hand-delivered nukes can be shielded much better against
radioactive emmissions than any missile-borne WMD, which would thwart the USA's highlysecretive NEST teams. Without the tell-tale trace of a ballistic launch, which would pinpiont the country of origin, the USA would have a hard time determining whether a nuclear explosion onUS soil was a result of hostile action by Al-Queda, the DPRK, or any other member of the nuclear "club" (or some combination thereof).

"Dubya's" entire "justification" for a preemptive
war in Iraq is nonsense, since even Dr. Rice admitted before cameras (check out the M.Moore
Fahrenheit 9-11 DVD) that Saddam did not have WMD capabilities, well before initiating war. But what this war has done is to draw down USA defense forces in the homeland, leaving our borders and seaports insecure, and our nation's financial
health at risk. The DPRK does not have oil - if they did, "Dubya" would have gone there first. OTOH, the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) does have oil and is trying to become a member of the nuclear club. But they also have a population of 75 million, which could make a USA invasion very risky (as opposed to Iraq's population of 25 million). Of the three members of "Dubya's Axis of Evil", Iraq posed as the weakest and most tempting target - beaten in one war, strangled by UN sanctions, AND with nearly 1/2 of all known oil reserves. The Bush team did the math, figured the odds, and THEN tried to build the justification for war with Iraq.

The Bush administration has been counting on pressure from the PRC on the DPRK to halt their nuclear program. 80 percent of all foreign aid
flowing into the DPRK comes from the Chinese, not the RoK or the West. Let's just call that a big bad judgement call, because the DPRK is a client state of (and proxy for) the PRC. The PRC's rapid industrialization has made it the fastest growing importer of oil, which they recognized as an economic weakness for a long time. That is why they have been so deeply involved in the Middle East for as long as they have - both as an ally to these OPEC countries and as a "spoiler" to the West. Before Gulf War (I), it was Chinese "silkworm" missiles that threatened oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, deployed along the IRI coastline. And the PRC was the "hidden hand" behind the DPRK's nuclear and missile trade with Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan that brought Pakistan into the nuclear club.

You don't really thing that it was just a mistake
that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC
embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking"
it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?

The DPRK presents the biggest threat to its regional neighbors, as it has been for 25 years.
Japan would do well to become a member of the
nuclear club, and quickly, as a counter to both
the DPRK's and the PRC's ambitions of regional hegenomy. They might have to re-write their
constitution to do so, but so be it.

Re:Fallacy Alert

[PsiPsiStar]

You don't really thing that it was just a mistake
that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC
embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking"
it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?

Umm... dude, that wasn't in Iraq, it was in Europe. And it was because the Chinese embasy was acting as a radio relay station in violation of the tradition of embassies. Though the States won't admit it. It was the only bombing run that came directly from the CIA rather than NATO.

Re:Fallacy Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

e USA has had NORAD and the DEW line for about 50 years, Space Command and the KH-nn satellite system for nearly 40 years. The DPRK (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) will not be launching nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at the USA without the threat of total destruction.

Agreed, did I say something that led anyone to believe that the US wouldn't destroy North Korea would be destroyed if they launched against the US?

Missiles that the DPRK currently has can travel nearly 7,000 miles, which puts more than 1/3 of the USA within their range - think Boulder CO and Cheyenne Mountain, and not just Hawaii.

Link please? I've got this one that says NK has the missle range of 2175 miles.

The DPRK also has submarines sold to them by our friends the Russians - they aren't nuke powered but they are quiet. The best-guess scenario would be that the DPRK delivers a few nukes by submarine to the USA's west coast

Well, while they are trying to get their Sub's over here, maybe they can manage not to get them caught in any fishing nets

, or smuggles them across the nearly wide-open borders.

I could see that happening.

Hand-delivered nukes can be shielded much better against radioactive emmissions than any missile-borne WMD, which would thwart the USA's highlysecretive NEST teams.

They aren't too secret if you know about them and can turn them up easily with a google search. :)

Without the tell-tale trace of a ballistic launch, which would pinpiont the country of origin, the USA would have a hard time determining whether a nuclear explosion onUS soil was a result of hostile action by Al-Queda, the DPRK, or any other member of the nuclear "club" (or some combination thereof).

Agreed.

"Dubya's" entire "justification" for a preemptive war in Iraq is nonsense, since even Dr. Rice admitted before cameras (check out the M.Moore Fahrenheit 9-11 DVD)

I prefer not to use propaganda from either "tribal" side as basis for any serious thought.

that Saddam did not have WMD capabilities, well before initiating war.

But was he going to attack us in some way? Putin thought so. And so did Russian intellegence officers. Isn't the presidents main job to protect the American people?

But what this war has done is to draw down USA defense forces in the homeland, leaving our borders and seaports insecure, and our nation's financial health at risk.

Our nations finacial health has been poor since the 1970's with temporary upswings in the 1980's and 1990's. We borrow too much, and we spend too much. As for the borders, they have never been secure nor was it ever the military's job to secure them. They are no less secure now than they were 10 years ago. Now, do I think the military should be securing them? Oh yeah.

The DPRK does not have oil - if they did, "Dubya" would have gone there first.

The US did not have oil "problems" in the first place. If the US wanted to invade somewhere for Oil, Saudi Arabia would be the place.

OTOH, the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) does have oil and is trying to become a member of the nuclear club. But they also have a population of 75 million, which could make a USA invasion very risky (as opposed to Iraq's population of 25 million).

Iran has a better chance of reform within the next 20 years, Iraq had no chance. North Korea also has no chance.

Of the three members of "Dubya's Axis of Evil", Iraq posed as the weakest and most tempting target - beaten in one war, strangled by UN sanctions, AND with nearly 1/2 of all known oil reserves.

But the US doesn'

Re:Fallacy Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the current political climate, if NK decided to nuke Boulder I'm not sure that the administration would care!

Re:Fallacy Alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Are our oil/gas prices going to go down?

They don't have to go down. It's "mission accomplished" when the long-term profit margins increase.

I also know I will be modded -1 but

[notcreative]

There really isn't anything that we can't blame on Clinton if we try. Obviously the economy is in the dumps because of Clinton. Obviously people's marriages are falling apart, children don't respect their elders, underpants are exposed one or two inches above the pants themselves, health care costs are rising, the environment is overprotected, and longhairs have too many freedoms, all because of Clinton's two presidencies. I just hope that two terms of Bush2 will be enough to reverse the hideous damage of 92-00.

Re:I also know I will be modded -1 but

[Anonymous Coward]

Your message is filled with absolutely nothing meaningful and should be deleted.

Actually

[Jeppe Salvesen]

North Korea and Iran are both much worthier adversaries than Iraq was.

Their armies are bigger and better trained than those of Iraq. In the case of North Korea, they also claim to have the bomb. North Korea has a large army, lots of special troops and spend 22 percent of their GDP on the military. Attacking North Korea will be extremely difficult and expensive. That is probably a large part of the reason why the US has shied away from confrontation and allowed NK to continue its game towards the nuclear bomb.

Pot, meet Kettle

[MachineShedFred]

just wanna get a little retarded comment in? ur gay, right?????

Pot: Hey, you're black, aren't you?
Kettle: I'm not black, you're black!

STFU.

Re:hardline approach

[Anonymous Coward]

"A country that, instead of helping its own people, puts much of its resources towards military"

1% cuts across the board, 5%+ increase in military spending. You're right. What a surprise.

duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

duh. Really? They have nukes?? NO kidding. What a freaking surprise

N. Korea has no oil

[k3rnl]

Well, Iraq hadn't weapons of mass distruction as Mr. Bush said, but they invaded Iraq. N. Korea has Atomic weapons, will Bush do the same? I don't think so, oil missing.

already testing????

[Anonymous Coward]

In september it was in the news that a large section of a mountain in north korea was seen to collapse by spy sattelites. apparently he way the side of the mountain collapsed looked "very" similar to an underground nuke detonation. Korea never responed to questions as to what the collapse might have been. SO they may have already tested. The US and most other european nations including russia would know if it was a nuke by the siesmic readings and by any residfual radiation. But i doubt that info would be made public....

the BBC link to the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/365 0702.st m

S.korea v USA

[Stanneh]

imagine the scenario usa being all dumb try to invade N.Korea then north korea being north korea nuke fuck out of U.S soil i can only see 2 outcomes to this america finaly waking up to the fact that they stick their noses in other peaples busines too much or usa will reply with nukes making the whole situation fucked up and proving the world right about how dumb america is all over again. i can see the United Nations laughing now.

But this time it is different

[Presence1]

He's just taken a half-step across the wrong line. If he ever finishes that step and actually lobs one across a border, that'll be the end of it. Period.

IIRC, the US has mutual protection pacts with Japan and S Korea, which basically means that we treat an attack on them as an attack on the US. Obviously, we could react a bit more mildly if we chose, but I wouldn't expect the current administration to do so. More likely, they're just itching for an excuse to take out NK and be done with the problem.

Decisions would be made before any NK missile even landed. Ever read what a Trident sub can do? 24 5-warhead missiles, with each warhead yielding 100-475 KT (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ~20KT each). Can you say 'smoking ruins in 15 minutes'? Or, how about a few dozen cruise milssiles with 500# conventional warheads coming in whatever window we choose?

He is playing as dangerous and stupid game as there is, and he cannot win. Does he really think that one or two nukes on a primitive missile will buy him anything? All he can do is make a mess for everyone. I really pity the poor people who are born into that miserable parody of a country. They have no chance.

Why it sucks to be in Canada

[BierGuzzl]

Whenever the Americans stir up the terrorists, we wind up with fallout. In the case of North Korea, that'd be nuclear fallout.

When, exactly were we supposed to believe them?

[zippthorne]

Every other week, "Hans Blix and the Weapons Inspectors" changed their position. One week it was, "we didn't find any therefore they aren't there" the next week it was, "We didn't find any but Saddam wouldn't let us in key areas, so they're probably there" then it was "Saddam didn't let us in those key areas, but based on not finding them anywhere else, we don't think they're there either" Then a combination of the first two, and repeat.

Given that kind of intelligence, what assumption can you make? "everything's hunky dory, nothing to see here" or "well the statis quo seems ok, but there's a chance saddam is preparing for another major assault that could threaten US or world interest"

Not to mention the fact that the invasion was about iraq's culture conducive to terrorism, terrorist training camps that had plane fusilages, payments to terror-bomber's families by saddam's regime, violations of the no-fly zone, suspicions of violations the "oil-for-food"^h^h^h^h^hfrench weapons program, and oh yeah, posible mass produciton of biological and chemical weapons. All of which have been found, though the evidnece for that last appears to have been ambiguous enough to discount. In the US, the big news corp's harped on a 15 second exerpt from Colin Powel's speach before the UN and thus "The war was about WMD's, i mean.. we didn't talk about anything else" -- anchorbot5000 (MS-ABCNNBCBS). I'm surprised you haven't heard about any of this in foreign countries where the news is much better (TM). The paradox is that the coalition went to war to enforce UN resolutions, but in the process proved the UN's very irrelevance due to said organisation's unwillingness to enforce it's own resolutions.

I was surprised that the wmd's were not found, but i'm more concerned with the answers to two questions: "if there are no wmd's, then why were the weapons inspectors blocked?" and "if there were wmd's then where are they now?" I would very much like for the answer to the first make the second irrelevant.

Re:When, exactly were we supposed to believe them?

[Alsee]

"if there are no wmd's, then why were the weapons inspectors blocked?"

Saddam was a petty dictator and stupidly got sucked into playing politics and a show of sovereignty and defiance. Are you REALLY the least bit supprised that Saddam balked at foriegn inspectors defiantly poking around his country and his government?

Hell, look at the no-fly-zone nonsense that was going on. Do you think that had anything to do with hiding WMDs? No, Saddam bridled against the inspectors for the stupid reasons he bridled against the no-fly-zones.

And no, the inspectors weren't changing positions. They consistantly said they found no credible evidence of WMDs, and that Saddam was occationally being a pain in the ass about submitting to inspections. Was it suspicious? Ok, it was suspicious. It was clearly stupid of him. But it was hardly unusual or unexpected. As I recall the inspectors' reports, while they did complain about Saddam being a pain in the ass they also explicitly note that they ALWAYS did eventually get the required cooperation and inspections.

The US Senate Intellegence committee report concluded that Saddam had indeed ordered all WMDs destroyed and had indeed ordered all WMD programs shut down. And that there was no credible evidence at the time indicating otherwise.

As for terrorists in Iraq, there was doubleless the same anti-Israel crap going on as in every other country in the mid-east. Saddam certainly wasn't involved in 9/11, and about the last thing he'd want to do is support Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesn't give a rats-ass about the US. Their goal is to topple the current arab governments and install a pan-arab theocracy. The only reason Al Qaeda is attacking the US is because they blame us for "propping up" the current arab governments. They think that is "obviously" the only reason they could have failed thus far to overthrow the local arab governments. Saddam ran one of the most secular governments in the mid-east. To Saddam religious funamentalists like Al Qaeda were a threat attempting to topple his rule.

posible mass produciton of biological and chemical weapons... ambiguous enough to discount.

It's ambiguous primarily in that a growing civilian chemical industry and other legitimate "dual use items" can easily be turned to other uses. It makes great fodder for suspicions and theories.

And of course there were also the remnants of former WMD programs lying around. Misplaced items and chemicals which had degraded to inert uselessness over the years. I beleive that there were even two or more instances of exposure from old chemical warheads that had escaped destruction, and they were so degraded that no one was even affected by it. It's hardly suprising that a thrid-rate operation like Iraq would loose track of some quantities of some materials. A missing ton of chemical-X that's on the books from 6 years ago is hardly strong evidence of an active WMD program. In the absense of supporting evidence to the contrary, occational "lost" materials is quite reasonably Iraqi incompetence or curruption.

-

Speeking of sheep

[N3wsByt3]

you're one of the hurd. (ask Stallman for more info)

1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.

2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.

3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.

3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.

4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?

What Barry says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq wasn't about the security of US people and NK having the ability to lob nukes on your west coast is not necessarily a bad thing to your current government. It's The New American Century, stupid.

Simple break down on diplomacy.

[Jerk City Troll]

Iraq has oil, therefore we invest in invading and occupying.

North Korea does not, therefore we save money by pursuing diplomacy.

I don't understand how any of those goddamn Right-wing nut-jobs out there can possibly not see how much bullshit there is in the Bush Administration's policy. We go after the non-threat while the threat is sitting there bragging at us all the while about how they are actively developing WMD.

I am so sick of these stupid fuckers making big mistakes for which we will all have to pay dearly.

Good.

[Catbeller]

Good for them.

It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.

They are busy starving, and not menacing us.

They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.

They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.

Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.

The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like.

Re:Good.

[Catbeller]

" Good for them.

It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.

They are busy starving, and not menacing us.

They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.

They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.

Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.

The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like."

Labelled a troll? It's a simple statement of several obvious facts. Deal with it, wingers. Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information.

Re:Good.

[easter1916]

Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information.

Rock on, Catbeller. Right on the money.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! I can't believe that I needed to read all the way down to see a comment like this.

It is not a God given right of US to have nuclear weapons, nor can it really say anything about other *sovereign* nations having their own weapons. If the US really wanted the world to be free of nukes, they should start by setting an example for the rest of the world, by not reneging on treaties and making a real effort to reduce their own stockpile.

Trying to force things down other people's throat can only work for so long... it is only a matter of time before other nations refuse to accept such a one-sided policy. Try to look deeply into the reason for the angst the rest of the world has against the US.

Re:Good.

[kilfarsnar]

"We're not special children of God's army..."

This would be news to the president.

Re:Good.

[fishbowl]

"If the US really wanted the world to be free of nukes, they should start by setting an example for the rest of the world"

And if the world wanted the US to be free of nukes, the pressure that could be exerted is enormous.

Last time I checked:

1. No existing alliances have been severed between any country and the US
2. Almost every country in the world that is not already forbidden by treaty, is happy to engage in trade with the US.
3. Americans are free to travel to, from, and within nearly every country in the world.
4. No threat of military force has been placed on the US as a consequence for keeping nuclear weapons.

Basically, it looks like everybody is satisfied with the US having nukes. Why should the US do something that nobody is demanding?

Re:Good.

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

Ah, what the hell. I really didn't need the Karma anyway...

It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

Nope, not illegal. Monumentally stupid. This certainly will not get them any aid as the U.S. (generally) won't deal kindly with blackmail or extortion.

Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.

No, we're not God's army. However, neither are they and we are still the guy with the biggest stick on the playground. Although that may change someday, right now we have some leverage to dictate some terms as to how things are going to be run if our monetary resources are to be used by other countries for things like, say, Tsunami relief.

They are busy starving, and not menacing us.

The people of the so-called Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea -- meaning those who do not weild military power -- are definitely starving and hardly menacing on their own. Those in power, however, are quite menacing to South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, etc. Many of those nations are our friends (or at least temporarily friendly to us), and deserve some assistance.

They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.

The people that are more likely to invade are actually China and Russia if the DPRK gets really out of hand. However, we may very well help those countries if need be. Bush did not specifically make any statement to the effect of destroying the countries, BTW, he was only referring to the regimes that have driven them into the ground.

They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide.

The danger to the U.S. is in the sale of the arms to terrorists. There is already some evidence pointing to sales of the material to Libya and Pakistan (as well as apparently Iran). We are definitely vulnerable through a number of routes to all sorts of attack, either directly or through our interests abroad.

Besides that -- it only seems instant suicide until they actually try it. Suppose they did use one. What would happen? I'd bet very little for a long time. The political ramifications of the U.S. nuking them in retailiation would make it very unlikely.

CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.

I call BS on that. CNN would be all over how it was the U.S.'s fault that DPRK, directly or indirectly, attacked.

Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.

Perhaps. But that sort of defense comes with a price (need for vigilence, even more International irritation, more drain on their already thin economy). I doubt they're really ready to pay for it. More likely, they'll just get more and more desperate, and desperate people with big weapons are always a danger.

Keep in mind that we were not making any particular hostile overtures toward them until they decided to renig on the various treaties with us when we were still willing to deal with them one-on-one (no reason to continue that since it didn't help before). It was only after the nuclear programs got some traction (and we were attacked in an unrealted incident) that Bush made his axis of evil speech. This deterrance was concocted during a time when noone was really paying them any attention. DPRK's nuclearizing is more of a tantrum

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Labelled a troll? It's a simple statement of several obvious facts. Deal with it, wingers. Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information."

I second Catbeller. Very well laid out facts. This place appears to be composed of a mini bush administration.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This certainly will not get them any aid as the U.S. (generally) won't deal kindly with blackmail or extortion."

OMFG! What a load of steaming shit.

Actually, the U.S. uses blackmail and extortion whenever it pleases!!!

*Kindly rolls up Bullshits_in_the_dark's post and shoves it up his ass*

Re:Good.

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

"This certainly will not get them any aid as the U.S. (generally) won't deal kindly with blackmail or extortion."

OMFG! What a load of steaming shit.

Actually, the U.S. uses blackmail and extortion whenever it pleases!!!

If you had bothered to actually read the quote, you may have noticed that it made no mention on the U.S. use of blackmail and extortion -- only that we don't take kindly to it when it is applied to us.

OTOH, I don't think the U.S. has used its position nearly as much as it could have if it chose to over time. There are plenty of times throughout recent U.S. history that the U.S. could have been much more pushy than it actually has been.

The overall point of the grandparent post is that getting nukes is NOT going to help the DPRK's position and ultimately will only server to hurt their people further. They're not likely to get what they want (power in the region) not are they likely to get aid as a result of these actions.

*Kindly rolls up Bullshits_in_the_dark's post and shoves it up his ass*

* Respectfully yanks the sh!te covered grandparent post back out of his behind and whacks the AC neatly, but firmly. over the head with it *

Bad AC, Bad! Next time at least post with your real account.

Thanks for helping me with the imagery tho.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a helmet and containment suit on before you did that.

Re:Good.

[gfreeman]

No, we're not God's army. However, neither are they and we are still the guy with the biggest stick on the playground. Although that may change someday, right now we have some leverage to dictate some terms as to how things are going to be run if our monetary resources are to be used by other countries for things like, say, Tsunami relief.

"I see that >100k have died and that you need help, but here's the tune you'll dance to if you want our assistance"

Shame on you.

First to Know, stock market drop

[Anonymous Coward]

Who was the first to find out that North Korea was going to announce this today?

How come the US stock market seemed to know that North Korea had nuclear weapons yesterday, and pulled out out of fear of the reaction?

The prices dropped apparently for no reason (they say it was "profit taking"). It now seems clear that a lot of people knew that North Korea was going ot announce this today, yesterday.

So Invade them next?!

[adeydas]

So is American going to invade them next?!

Re:So Invade them next?!

[kilfarsnar]

No, because thay have a large army and we already engaged in a Korean war that we didn't win.

I Have the Solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

We should just air-drop a bunch of hippies in cargo freight boxes into the DPRK. We wait until this operation has been going on for some time and the country is saturated enough so that they're too passive in the face of aggression. Then we go and bomb the hell out of them. In fact, this is a great way to conquer the world.

Re:I Have the Solution!

[DanUK]

prat

Re:I Have the Solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

prat

If you like, but, if you look closely, you'll see that my reasoning is without flaw. Indeed, I am a genius of the highest order and you'll have to forgive me if I become bemused at the fact you took some sort of offense at my worthy suggestion.

only old people

[stormi]

but only old people in north korea have nukler weapons...

No I wouldn't

[Anonymous Coward]

You make the common mistake that the Bush Administration is getting oil, so we can have cheaper gas. No, it's so the wealthy oil business's and it's caretakers, the back bone of american society, can continue to maintain their wealth and power.

I mean what do you think Bush or any other member of government is talking about when they say, "We are going into to Iraq to promote freedom and protect our interest".

I mean what do you think "our interest" are?

Saddaam Hussein is pretty tame when it comes to villified dictators. We killed more civilians in the first month of the war then he did during his regime. Of all the places in the world where human beings are dying needless you think Iraq ranks pretty high? Not at all. But, their oil makes them important, stability is needed for that reason and that reason alone. After all I hate to break it to you, the U.S. enjoys it's life of luxury because it's willing to do what it takes to protect it's interest. Hard for you to swallow, but it's that simple. So, enjoy your burger, and smill the $hit for what it is.

Just wanted to point out...

[eno2001]

...that it's NUCLEAR. Say it with me:

NEW--CLEE--ARR

If another bonejob says "Nukyelar", I'm going to have to go postal on him. After all... you don't say "Nukyelus", do you??? ;)

What depressing.

[jotaeleemeese]

This claim about WMDs is completely and utterly discredited, it is publicly and widely documented that the current group in power in the US had on its agenda to attack Iraq no matter what, and here we are, having to endure political ostriches continue to defend the indefensible.

I am sure that Hussein also bought all the other countries in the security council, like Mexico, that in spite of enormous pressure from the US and potential "under the table" sanctions, stood their ground because there was absolutely no credible evidence of WMDs.

You quote people out of context, people that publicly had said exactly the opossite, not once, but many times, and somehow you believe that defends your arguments.

Well, such tactics defend nothing and only show how cynical some people are that no matter what will stick to the unsusteinable without regard for the obvious.

Re:What depressing.

[deanj]

I quoted no one out of context, despite your wishes to the contrary.

Read the article I posted the link to. Search and read the articles about what was going on at that time.

It states the facts of what people were saying at that time.

You would be right...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for the fact that both the first and current wars against Iraq were preceded by Hussein restricting the access of international inspectors, before outright denying them entry.

Saber Rattaling at its best.

[halo8]

I knew it. i foresaw this yesterday.

EVERY SINGLE TIME in the last 4 years, whenever the USA says something about Iran or Iraq the VERY NEXT day N.Korea comes along with this BS.

before the gulf war when Iraq was showing it had no WMD's and all the cameras where in Iraq and Bush was posturing, a day later North Korea comes along and takes center stage for a day... then the news when back to iraq and well we all know what happend there.

as a joke to prove my theory, i had links and dates all written down. but i lost the word file to prove this in a hardrive crash :( sorry /.

Don't Forget....

[cr0y]

With all the talk about Iraq, this is what I have to say.

Saddam Hussein gased HIS OWN people with Tabun and VX poison gas.

sarcasm {
nooo...He never had WMDs
}

Re:Don't Forget....

[polar red]

And Bush (sr.) put him(Saddam) in power.

Re:Don't Forget....

[fishbowl]

> And Bush (sr.) put him(Saddam) in power.

Bush didn't get in the way, but Saddam was hard at work on his rise to power since at least 1955, and might very well have reached his aspirations without any help from Bush. I don't know how much of a hand you think Bush gave him in 1979. As I remember it, Bush Sr. was between jobs when Hussein became president of Iraq. Sr. was too busy failing to get the GOP nomination for president to be too worried about Hussein, and bear in mind this was before the Iraq/Iran war had even begun.

It may be comforting to you to believe that Hussein rose to power with a boost from the US, but I find that unsatisfying, since he seems to have had quite a successful run on his own resources.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[workindev]

Boy, you are uninformed.

12/07/02 - Iraq gives 12000 pages of documentation to UN. 12/13/02 - The US (NOT U.N.) claim "missing answers"

You seem to have forgotten about 1/27/03 - Hans Blix said: "On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council... Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues."

Other countries fail to meet U.N. resolutions without being invaded

Yeah? Name one.

Wow, two things: 1. You admit he DIDN'T have a WMD program. 2. You say he wanted to build a WMD program, i assume you got that iformation via CNN.

If you ever bothered to read the ISG report regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities, you would know that 1. Iraq certainly did have WMD programs and 2. He retained equipment and intellectual capital that was in violation of the UN requirements and 3. He had clear intentions of mass producing WMD as soon as the UN sanctions were removed.

But my guess is that you never even bothered to read the report.

I call bullshit. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented.

Don't be ignorant. There are clear and documented ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda that date back to the early 1990's. The Clinton Administration connected Al Qaeda and Iraq when they bombed the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, and the Clinton State Department issued a clear indictment that Al Qaeda "reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Zarqawi has been in Iraq since early 2002, and has a clear history with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. The Iraqi terrorist group Ansar Al-Islam also had a relationship with Al Qaeda.

More importantly, Iraq was on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for the better part of 2 decades.

Arguing that Iraq was not involved with terrorists only makes you look stupid and ignorant, but I think most people already knew that about you after reading some of your other idiotic posts.

Who gave the US....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... the right to impose anything at all?

I wish the US would leave the rest of the world alone, the schaemful problems of poverty and destitution back there should be enough to concentrate the minds of any serious goverment.

Unfortunately the US economy is in need of the military complex to redress the economic imbalance of an obscene public debt. And the poorest in the US are sold this idiotic dream of bettering themselves by maning the US murderous machine.

The US is bad in so many ways that to find people pretending that the US has any moral authotiry to impose anything anywhere would be laughable if the implications were not so terribly serious.

Re:Who gave the US....

[ruzel]

jotaeleemeese, I think you would very much appreciate this short film:

http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

I think it's fair to say that the ONLY reason the US attacks a country these days economic.

North Korea's New Toy, and the Axis of Evil

[thelizman]

So, basically, instead of having to rattle sabres with conventional arms to get food and infrastructure aid from the US, South Korea, Japan, and China, North Korea now has a nuclear saber to rattle and extort food and infrastructure aid from the same. Don't forget that Korea also has the No Dong missile (that is not a joke, No Dong means "long march" in Chinese, and is not a reference to asian phallic dimensions) that was developed with Chinese assistance. So now the sabre rattling isn't just a threat of regional instability, but one of direct first strike: A No Dong tipped with a small nuke can reach Alaska, South Korea, Northern Hokkaido, and parts of China.

Incidentally, Bush called out North Korea in his infamous Axis of Evil speech. It's worth pointing out that Pyongyang sold parts and expertise on the No Dong to Iran which has resulted in an Iranian long range missile capable of hitting large swaths of the middle east. While Iran is a bit more stable and diplomatically minded, do not underestimate the radical hard line elements in the Iranian government. And do not think for one second that Iran's recent rapid progress in nuclear arms development is all home grown; its no coincidence that their program is running slightly behind, if not parallel to, North Koreas.

With America's nuclear stockpiles aging and in need of redesign/refit, don't be surprised if the next decade sees an East/West nuclear arms race. If ever there was a time to push ballistic missile defense, now is it.

Re:North Korea's New Toy, and the Axis of Evil

[polar red]

do not underestimate the radical hard line elements in the Iranian government. The same could be said about the US.

Re:North Korea's New Toy, and the Axis of Evil

[Cackmobile]

So basically the US has made the reason for the missile defence shield. Rattle some sabres at NK and Iran until they get nukes then point out that they have nukes and say 'see thats why we need the missile defense shield.' nice

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kinda fed up with all the people like you Bush is not and will nver be a dictator... He is a legaly elected president and will be gone in a littl under four years as required by law. Do france, germany or russia have term limits? I know russia dosn't... then again it's not a democracy it's the dictatorship you say bush

Wrongamundo

[The Ape With No Name]

Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Fehr, et al had plans in the works for a post-GOP presidential win invasion of Iraq as early as 1996. Retired US military strategists were doing virtual war games at those conservative "think tanks" all through out the second Clinton term in prep and one of those models was what the Iraq invasion was based upon. Not on Pentagon planning, but on private sources.

"Happened on a Battlefield"

[Black-Man]

Newsflash moron... VX Gas is prohibited by the Geneva Convention on the BATTLEFIELD, too. And what about the innocent civilians that were killed because of it? And what about the mass graves?

I may not agree with the US invasion, but to debate Saddam wasn't a tyrant is ridiculous.

Re:"Happened on a Battlefield"

[ProgressiveCynic]

Don't be so hasty, young master. I never said Saddam was not a tyrant, and I certainly don't think that killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

What are you basing your assertion that the gas was VX on? The DIA investigation determined that the Kurds had been killed by a cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time.

You bringing up the Geneva Convention is interesting given the large number of violations of that same convention committed by America and the UK since the invasion of Iraq. In fact, this is yet another form of what I was trying to convey with the comment about battlefields: war is wrong. As Donald Rumsfeld has reminded us over and over again, bad things happen in war. Whether Saddam actually ordered those Kurds gassed is questionable, but regardless of the truth using Saddam's violations and the killing of 5,000 civilians to justify our own violations, killing 100,000+ and counting just makes no sense. Two wrongs do not make a right. What does continuing the misdeeds of a tyrant at a larger scale make us?

Re:"Happened on a Battlefield"

[Fallingcow]

Did Iraq or Iran sign/ratify those treaties? I don't know, and am too lazy to look it up, but my feeling is that they didn't, in which case they aren't obliged to abide by them, and were totally free to use whatever means they felt like to prosecute their war.

Ouch!

[obzidian]

Well a human marrying an animal *is* a big story. -smirk-

Stupidest Reply Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude....you suck!

Re:Stupidest Reply Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

My god, the VIRGIN REPUBLICAN MASSES are all over Slashdot. FZer0, you are 100% right.

US and others should disarm also

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the US is strong arming everyone and saying that you can't have nukes but we can?

The US should take steps to disarm also, if not why should other countries not have nukes?

Don't you think this is like your parents telling you not to smoke pot or do drugs in then in the shed out back dad smokes a bowl nightly?

Go... Team America...

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea's Just pissed about Team America!

Mod Parent Up

[yem]

Having nukes means doing whatever the hell you want without interference from the rest of the world. Terrorism, civil war, genocide, whatever - no one is going to fuck with you. And if ever there were a country in desperate need of reform, it's NK:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13898 4&cid=11629584

Holy crap....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things...

That means that Iceland got nukes. Someone get the president!

Weather Report for North Korea

[TrebleJunkie]

Windy with brief high temperatures in 50,000's, followed by mostly cloudy skies.

If you don't have to stand in line for toilet paper today, your best bet is to stay home.

It's Dubya, not Duybia

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Dubya is just cleaning up Clinton's mess... get off his back.

Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments might hold more water if this hadn't come out today:

US plans $400m reward for allies

Which would seem to indicate that President Flightsuit has indeed been buying cooperation

Sam
London

Re:Oops

[deanj]

So...you're saying that support for allies in a war now, was planned two years ago?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

You can't equate support of allies in a war against facist extremists to a murderous dictator giving bribes to individuals to keep in power. Take the side of the religious facists that want to have Islamic Law in Iraq if you want to, but I'll stay on the side with the majority of Iraqis on this one.

right

[N3wsByt3]

"Note that some European nations have been complicit, particulary France, in aiding these rogue nations developing these weapons."

Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.

"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."

Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.

Re:right

[aelfheld]

Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.

Sorry Charlie.

The biggest suppliers of weapons and materiel to Saddam Hussein were France and Russia. This was true before the first Gulf War.

" dokterneo" : you are an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

" have read most of the posts below where Korea is being compared with Iraq. I amazed by the magnitude of sheep on this topic. I see a lot of pokes at the Bush administration, and how it was using WMD as an excuse to get "OIL". Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN? "

No.

You don't know what you are talking about.

People with simplistic world views like yours should ALL be over there in Iraq, if you believe so strongly in what your fearless leader Bush is doing.

And get off the "the US went to Iraq to save the Kurds". History shows that the US is quite willing to allow genocide to continue, in cases which do not involve any strategic ganis for the US.

Again : you don't know what you are talking about.

I can't waste any more time on this reply, because fools like you
don't arrive at their opinions by examining the truth anyway.

Goodbye - and please eat at McDonald's a lot more.

Who Cares?

[billethius]

Honestly, at this point, I hope we invade every country out there until someone finally just say F' it and starts the inevitable nuclear war that kills us all.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

How fucking stupid are you? There's a huge difference, stupid, between pushing creationism and fighting gay marriage and what Iran has done. Fucking stupid, spoiled cunt.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[polar red]

Yes there is a difference. But 'Hypocrisy' is a word I see floating before my eyes when the US says to the rest of the world to bend too their rules.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[trisight]

They do it to us here in the US.. it's the "We know better than you" mentality. The powers that be as it were think well if other countries have nukes they will use them for evil whereas we will use them for good... it's all a bunch of bull. They do it to us here with all the laws they make to ensure the safety of everyone.. when in fact most of the laws infringe upon our own personal liberties.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally speaking, the leders of the world, at least those with military forces at their command, appear to believe in US policy. Or if they disagree, they do not disagree strongly enough to sever alliances, threaten military action, or even raise trade embargoes against the US. And that's the kind of thing that would be required, and it isn't happening.
Lots of countries are complicit in the US hegemony, so don't just blame the US.

Rice blew it.

[HanB]

I can still hear her words echoing in my mind. With that smirky smile...

We have no plans to invade Iran at the moment, but they have to really show us something now.

At that moment she was speaking to the whole world. To the opponents she said, go back to bed and bother us no more since we just said we have no plans.

But it was a rude thread to Iran, and since North Korea and Iran are in about the same situation it also was a thread to N.K. You could just count the seconds until Kim Young Ill would get upset and retort.

Re:Rice blew it.

[easter1916]

She's an annoying, arrogant, blinkered idealogue. The very sight of her with her smirk, babbling absolutes made from nothing is deeply disturbing. That smirk seems to be the motif of the current US administration... it sums up the arrogance, the stubborness.

Re:Go ask Ward Churchill

[billethius]

Isn't this the point though? If we had ever had a war on our soil, would we be so quick to start wars with other countries or would we try harder to find a peaceful solution?

United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[mnmn]

Bushy plan:

(1) Find a country that disagrees with you.
(2) Economically and politically sideline them, till it becomes a tough place to live for the citizens, and blame the govt
(3) Call them terrorists for owning ANY weapons (OMG! they have knives!!!)
(4) Lie to link them with some bomb that went off somewhere in USA regardless of why
(5) Invade regardless of the lives lost
(6) Give the govt to ANY group of people but sideline the other groups, so the imbalance keeps the country divided and makes it a timebomb rather than some economic power
(6) Put in a puppet govt by holding elections with only the possible puppets as candidates and siphon off any possible natural resources
(7) Profit!!!!!

This works well for Afghanistan and Iraq, and seems to be working on Iran and N Korea currently.

But what I find quite funny is the extraordinary lack of symmetry. The US has nuclear weapons. Why? Because of rogue countries like N Korea which might use them. N Korea has Nuclear weapons, why? Because rogue nations like USA might attack. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Why? Because India might attack.

Whats worse is that the use of Biological and Chemical weapons by the Americans on civilians anywhere has been more extensive than by Saddam on Kurds. USA has been the only country in history to drop nuclear weapons on civilian cities. Now it is attacking another country for owning nuclear weapons, which it does in case the USA attacks.

So the big bully in the playground first beats up the kid. Then the bully says dont defend yourself at all, or I'll beat you up. Then he tries to get support from his friends saying the kid is trying to defend himself, therefore he must be beaten up.

N Korea is a shithole. So was Afghanistan, so was Iraq. Thats because of the economic sidelining of Uncle Sam, which has full control over the global economy. N Korea in many ways is trying to kick start their economy with a free economy zone, attract tourists etc. Sure theyre not doing a good job of it, but thats because they also have to defend themselves of American infiltration. But economy is in their sights, and the people are still dying of hunger. Is it because they are completely incapable of manufacturing exportable goods? China is not a democracy, but they are exporting goods and a far smaller percentage is dying of starvation.

Interesting is also the case of Zimbabwe's president Mugabe. He was elected in an election. But since he disagrees with Britain, has the guts to flip em the bird, suddenly Zimbabwe is a terrorist country, with a dictator, and if their natural resources were sufficient, it would warrant an invasion by the white knights of the west. Rule: Never EVER disagree with the USA.

I think the USA turning into such a bully is a very natural part of any empire in history. As soon as they become the undisputed global leader, they use excessive political and military forces for their personal benefits, until they become the global villain enough to be toppled by another global regeime. Think of the Chinese empires, the Roman empire, Greek empire, Mongolian empire etc. Couple that with the fact that you cannot suppress any people for too long, the future does not bode well for the Americans

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[easter1916]

Well said, but I disagree on a few points. Mugabe *is* a vicous autocrat. Dear Leader in North Korea has watched his own people starve as a result of his loco economic policies. I wouldn't trust either of these guys with anything, let alone nukes.

Some of the rest is a bit subjective, but you seem to have pretty much summed the situation up.

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[jac1962]

". . .because they also have to defend themselves of American infiltration"

When you can post photos of American G.I.s forcing people to eat Big Macs, listen to Britney Spears, or watch Hollywood movies, I'll believe America is an imperialist nation.

Until then, maybe you should exercise your freedom of choice and stop purchasing or using anything the evil Americans have "forced" upon you.

Really. You're free to do it.

So do it.

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone keeps saying the United States is like the Roman Empire. If that's true, the key question on Slashdot then is - where are the orgies happening and how does one get in on one ?

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[Psychotext]

That's easy, it works in exactly the same way as in the Roman Empire. That is - Unless you're rich you have to pay! :)

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[dcam]

I have to say that Id don't believe this "mad leader" theory. If they manage to maintain control, how can they be mad? I think it may be possible that they are mad and still competant, but I think it is unlikely.

Saddam was often called mad, and yet he managed to hold together a country of three different ethic groups, who hated each other. Note that the US is having some difficulty doing just that at the moment. The Kurds want to suceed, the Sunnis don't want the Shiites in power and the Shiites want sharia law.

Re:United States Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons

[easter1916]

Well, that is true. I don't think he's actually clinically insane, so much, as that he makes himself appear to be so to keep the US and others guessing about motives, next moves, etc. He's certainly an egomaniac though.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[B2382F29]

Yeah? Name one.

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

1. Iraq certainly did have WMD programs

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03- 02-un-wmd_x.htm

Don't be ignorant. There are clear and documented ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda that date back to the early 1990's.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm

Arguing that Iraq was not involved with terrorists only makes you look stupid and ignorant

I think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Easy to say...

[grahamsz]

It's not like you can just buy U238 at a 7-11 alongside the mountain dew.

It's easy to forget the massive effort that went into creating the first few bombs.

However once you've got the infrastructure to do, then you can keep at it... so it's pretty scary if NK does.

Re:Easy to say...

[Kosi]

It's not like you can just buy U238 at a 7-11 alongside the mountain dew.

I meant U-235, and, yes, I don't believe that it's a 7-11 who is selling this stuff in Russia.

No, it's going the wrong way in Iran

[Xel'Naga]

I disagree - while there were signifcant hope in 1997 with Khatami's election, it has since gone significantly in the wrong direction.

Politics of Iran:

In February, 2003, for the second time local elections had taken place since being introduced in 1999 as part of President Khatami's concept of a civil society at the grassroots level. 905 city councils and 34,205 village councils were up for election. In Tehran and some of the major cities, all of the seats were taken back by conservatives over reformists. This swing was caused by widespread abstention from the local elections. In Tehran only about 10% of the electorate voted, following appeals by reformist groups.

Many of the estimated 41 million eligible voters were under the age of 30 for a turnout of about 49%. This was considered a failure. Recent elections had been regarded as a test of strength between western influenced reformists and hardliners but this vote could also be seen as a virtual referendum on President Khatami's popularity.

In February 2004 Parliament elections, the Council of Guardians banned thousands of candidates, including most of the reformist members of the parliament and all the candidates of the Islamic Iran Participation Front party from running. This led to a win by the conservatives of at least 70% of the seats. The turnout was about 50%, the least in parliament elections since the establishment of the Islamic Republic.

direct threat?

[grahamsz]

North Korea is selling nuclear technology around the world. What could threaten us more than that?

Even if they were, and i believe you are probably thinking of pakistan or some former russian state, surely that would be, by definition, an indirect threat.

I don't beleive it but who dares to found out?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't beleive it but who dares to found out?

You obviously don't want to underestimate the threat.

Double Profit!

[ShieldW0lf]

1) Establish your currency as the only currency with which to purchase oil.

2) Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations, and that your country will thus grow rich

3) Profit!

4) Notice that some scumbag in Iraq is trading oil for euros instead of dollars

5) Realize that if you can buy oil with euros instead of dollars all those dollars you printed are going to come home like so many bad cheques

6) Invade Iraq and establish a puppet government

7) Profit!

Re:Double Profit!

[Guppy06]

"Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations"

Yeah, and its a good thing the US doesn't produce any of its own oil and no foreign interests actually buy oil exported by the US. We wouldn't want your little conspiracy theory to have to worry about the Alaska North Slope or the Gulf of Mexico, now would we?

Just because we're not Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we only buy oil, never sell. Heck, there was a time when the US itself was the world's biggest oil exporter (and we were pulled into the War in the Pacific because of it). The oil extraction industry in places like Alaska, Texas and Louisiana would, like all US exporters today, be very interested in selling in strong euros rather than weak dollars; they'd make a killing in the exchange rates.

you uh....you really got me there....

[sp3c1alK]

I am vanquished by your superior logic.

Hans Blix

[88NoSoup4U88]

I guess it won't be a good idea to send over Hans Blix uh ;

The guy might end up as sharkbait :D

[/obscure Team America reference}

Sounds o so familar

[jarran]

Mmm...

• Hostile government
  
• Owns nukes
  
• Refuses to disarm, or negotiate to disarm.
  
• Locks away people it doesn't like with trial
  
• Openly admits that it wants to remake the world in it's own image.
  

North Korea and US should really be best friends. They have so much in common.

Botox

[CiXeL]

"Bill Clinton describing "[Iraq's] offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;"

WOW. Just think how many wrinkles you could remove with that?

PLEASE! How many cosmetics doctors have VAST STOCKPILES of biological weapons in their custody.

Death to America

[jmichaelg]

Iran is slowly becoming more moderate.

Oh yeah, they're more moderate alright. Why it was months ago that the Iranian parliament chanted Death to America. Heck, months in Internet time is eons. Never mind that a majority (180/290) of the Iranian member of parliament are hard liners. No, Iran isn't a threat - no siree.

Re:Death to America

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight it's a threat. We should go in and liberate the place. I can't understand why we haven't donet that yet.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[Fallingcow]

It was "too late" because we'd already spend lots and lots of money to park a large military force on Iraq's doorstep. Couldn't let that money be spent without some fireworks to show for it, eh? That's one reason, anyway; the other is that Bush and Co. didn't give a damn about the weapons in the first place, as was obvious to anyone who was both paying attention to and thinking seriously about their arguments for war.

As to the "proof", my favorite isn't the made-up train/truck labs, it's the "hole in the ground where we think they burried... er... something". Go take a look at the infamous Powell=>UN presentation, one of the pictues is just that, and was even DESCRIBED as being just that: a building-sized area of disturbed dirt where they claimed some stuff had been burried. I laughed 'till I cried when I saw him point to that as "evidence".

Think again.

[hummassa]

South Korea. Near, full of American troops, and full of important-to-US factories.

let's examine that

[N3wsByt3]

I agree with your first two statements. ;-)

"Because ICBMs tend to ignore borders."

Is this supposed to be an argument to what the poster said? The USA does not have ICBMs? Borders can not be ignored by the USA?

"If some nutjob dictator is threatening you with them, then some reasonable ecautions/politics/defenses are in order."

Even nutjob dictators like to stay in power. Kim only threatens to use them when he's attacked; something the USA and many other nuke-containing countries have said in the past too.

This is the fallacy used by the Bushies: terrorists attack the USA, therefor dictators will attack the USA too, with nukes, if they have them.

It's crap, ofcourse. Sadam was no direct threat to the USA, and neither is Kim...unless, perhaps, when the USA invades. But then again, what country wouldn't react in the same manner? Let's not forget, after all, which is the only country to have actually used the A-bom on another country...

What disturbs me greatly, is the inherent hypocrisy of the USA. Nukes are forbidden, and sanctions are ordained (and even countries invaded) if OTHER countries develop nukes (or are claimed to do so).... but, as you said yourself, the USA has no moral right, not an inherent monopoly given by God on nukes and the development thereof. So why shouldn't other countries develop them?

And even IF the USA (and 4 or 5 other countries) had some god-given right to be the only one to develop them... why didn't they invade, nor sanctionned, Isreal when it created nukes? Because it is a democracy, and nukes are forbidden for dictators only?

Then why DID they sanction India for creating nukes, even though it is a democracy? And why did they dispelled and lifted the sanctions of india AND pakistan (governed by a dictator) which both have nukes?

The answer is: it's not about the nukes or the form of government you have, it's about playing ball with the USA. All the morality and 'reasons' given are bogus; they have no problem with setting aside their reasoning and ethics if it suits them. the truth is, they are deeply unethical, and while this is not the perogative of the USA alone, it makes it double hypocrite when they claim they do it out of high morality, and have their mouth full of freedom, making the world safer, getting rid of dictators (when in fact, they have helped some of the worst dicators in power), etc...when in fact, it's just selfinterest.

If it weren't for people like Michael Moore and (the late) Carl Sagan, I would develop a deep resentment and despise america as a whole. But at least they prove(d) there still is some sanity and critical thinking in the USA.

Re:let's examine that

[3TimeLoser]

Michael Moore aside, we're a lot closer on this issue than my previous post might have implied.

First off, I did not vote for Bush -- I lean much farther left. I think invading Afghansitan was the right thing to do. However, I think Iraq was a major screw up and Bush's handling of this without UN involvement did nothing but destroy any respect for US foreign policy.

I do not advocate violating borders on a whim or pre-emptively striking any country only because they are developing nuclear weapons and don't happen to like the US very much. We certainly didn't invade the USSR or China back in the cold war days.

However, the fact of the matter is that North Korea, by their own admission, has nuclear weapons and can probably stike the US west coast with them. Kim might just be nuts enough to try it. Taking measures to protect ourselves and limit the threat is prudent (damn, that kind of sounds like Bush, doesn't it?). If we have to play a little rough diplomatically and get our hands a little dirty, so be it. It should be clear that if North Korea uses those weapons against us, they will very quickly cease to exist.

I'll agree that there's quite a bit of hypocrisy with the US playing favorites with certain countries and not others over the same issues. I'll also agree that we created some of the mess. However, we really can't treat all countries the same. Like friendships, we have better relations with some countries than others. Some countries will never be our "friends". If you do not like the US, fine. But don't expect any favors.

I'd like to see the US move toward a more friendly foreign policy and try to patch some of these relationships. These days, the borders between countries are becoming much more transparent (i.e. China) and we should look toward building relationships -- not pissing everyone off.

Re:let's examine that

[N3wsByt3]

Indeed, we might be closer. It is reasonable to limit any threat to yourself or your country, provided the measures taken are reasonable on themselves. A pre-emptive strike is not. But I think we agree on this.

Ofcourse, this is true for other countries as well.

Unfortunatly, the recent history shows us that the USA is:

1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.

2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.

Following those observations, and seen the fact that a country actually having nukes poses too great a risk for the USA to invade, the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.

Re:let's examine that

[3TimeLoser]

1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.

Post-Bush, unfortunately you are correct. Pre-Bush, not so. That's why we need to elect someone very unlike Bush next time.

2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.

We (the US) are not foolish. It is always best to pick your battles wisely. We'll fight if we have to, but we'll certainly be more cautious against a bigger opponent.

the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.

This thinking seems a little odd to me. On one hand they think they need nukes to defend themselves from us, but on the other hand if they build nukes, they think we may very well invade. What to do? Sounds a little like a catch-22, but there is an answer. Don't build the nukes.

MOD PARENT UP

[nutshell42]

n/t

It is my right and priviledge ...

[ggvaidya]

... in this massively overheated discussion, to politely point out that you forgot Poland. And no, "other allies" just doesn't cut it. I'm sorry.

Then how about this quote?

[TheConfusedOne]

Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.

To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist they must be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

(Emphasis added)

I'm not sure how you categorize that as a paraphrase. link

Re:Then how about this quote?

[Richard_at_work]

The paraphrase is that there was a document that suggested, with no credible backup, that double amounts existed of some chemicals. Blix later concluded that all items unaccounted for were infact doubled up on paper, there was infact no corresponding physical item, it was just two documents that were later found to mean the same physical item.

As an aside, how the FUCK are you supposed to prove that something doesnt exist, especially to a paranoid body?

Face it, the invasion was illegal and unjustified based on the evidence given. No manner of downmodding me (my previous post has been to +5, insightful 6 times now, while being modded down) will silence my opinion on the matter.

Taiwan.

[juuri]

I know you are joking but most Americans and people from around the world don't get it when it comes to China and Taiwan.

Ask a Chinese mainlander about the island "country" and they will quickly tell you how Taiwan is nothing but a spoiled child who has left home for a little while but shall return. Most everyone from the mainland believes with full conviction that the island *is* part of their homeland.

Re:Taiwan.

[Jayzz]

So, as long as mainland Chinese think that way, you don't care what Taiwanese think? Go ask Taiwanese about the matter, they will answer exactly the opposite.

Re:Taiwan.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that US government acknowledge Taiwan is part of China. And most of the governments in the world do.

Re:Taiwan.

[Anonymous Coward]

not exactly. the chance of having an answer "no" or "yes" is 50-50.

It's not a US policy

[sp3c1alK]

The United Nations created and enforces these rules as part of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

We certainly have a right to speak up on the issue. Does free speech not exist if you're a super power?

Libya

[KnarfO]

You and James seemed to have forgotten that a rogue state has indeed begun the disarmarment process, thanks in part to the US's tough stance on this.

Carrot and stick. The US doesn't need to be a bully, but being a wimp is no solution either.

History is propaganda

[JavaLord]

Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda.

History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.

Re:History is propaganda

[Edward Faulkner]

History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.

But if you make an effort to read and compare a wide enough range of historians and primary sources, you can sort out a much better approximation for the truth. My own efforts on this front have completely changed my understanding of politics and economics.

This is not how schools teach history, unfortunately. What you learn in school is indeed saturated with propganda.

Re:History is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't mater who wrote it, nor how many views you get.

History is written by the victors, not the losers.

Blaming the people?

[robinjo]

Are the people really really innocnet?

Are you sure? Really really sure?

Are they not responsible for the power structure that is in place that allows atrocities to be comitted on a dily basis?

Are you really sure you want to blame the people of North Korea? Because I've tried very hard to not blame the citizens of USA for the Iraq war and war on terror.

IMO the US people are nice. Too bad they have a rotten government that gives them a bad rep...

Re:Blaming the people?

[Dread_ed]

Why would you use the word blame, and why would you not hold the people of the USA accountable for our actions?

I think that you mistake what responsibility is and its ramifications. We practice a representative form of government. We elected the people who gave the orders to invade Iraq and who started the war on terror. If "we the people" are not responsible, who is?

BTW, the US people ARE nice. However, we react badly when people fly planes into our buildings in the most populous city in our country, killing our citizens in a dastardly unprovoked attack. Your country might do the same if it happens to you.

Re:Blaming the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, unprovoked that's a nice bit of misinformation.

Re:Blaming the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, we react badly when people fly planes into our buildings in the most populous city in our country, killing our citizens in a dastardly unprovoked attack.

You accidentally typed an "un" before that "provoked". I think we knew what you meant, though, and can overlook it.

Re:Blaming the people?

[Alsee]

I know some of my fellow Americans are absolute morons, but suggesting we invaded Iraq because Iraq blew up the Twin Towers.... jeez... that's exceptionally ignorant and stupid. God I hope you're trolling.

-

Re:Blaming the people?

[Dread_ed]

Notice how the word Iraq appears nowhere in my post, yet appears twice in your post. Strange that you would bring it up (when I had not) and attach it to the meaning in my post when it was (wow, still is not) there.

Re:Blaming the people?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, we react badly when people fly planes into our buildings in the most populous city in our country, killing our citizens in a dastardly unprovoked attack. have you ever read any history? it was not unprovoked attack. it was a response for us actions. it was a military attack against military targets. pentagon was certainly a military target and wtc was running economic machine that causes very massive amount of tragedy around the world. there was collateral damage as always in the war. 3000 dead americans is very little compared to millions of dead people caused by americans worldwide.

Re:Blaming the people?

[CaptainAvatar]

Yeah, that would be because it was in the post you responded to.

Re:Blaming the people?

[Alsee]

Notice how the word Iraq appears nowhere in my post

I think we BOTH need to read your post more carefully. Chuckle.

You definitly were the one to bring up Iraq:
We elected the people who gave the orders to invade Iraq and who started the war on terror.

However I think I owe you an apology. I think I misparsed that sentence and it affected my understaning of the entire post. I think I misconnected the "who" with it's subject. I now realize you were almost certainly saying:

We elected the people who started the war.

But I linked the "who" this way:

Iraq who started the war.

With that linkage in mind the phrase "people fly planes into our buildings" sounded like the same "who", meaning Iraq.

Maybe I should have suspected a misreading, but sadly it is all too plausible that someone really was saying something that absurd. Sorry for the flamage. Hopefully you sort of understand how I read it the way I did.

-

whaazaaa?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd check that virgin comment after me and 5 republican friends had a go at you last night. We're not all closed minded you know.

Seeing as FZer0 spends most of his free time looking for clean water to drink, I don't think he's an authority on global politics.

Re:whaazaaa?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's more authority than a Republican. Where are those wmd again?

Call me nuts...

[voodoo_bluesman]

But we may be able to get ahead in this by lifting military restrictions on Japan and South Korea.

Let those countries develop their own military power to defend themselves, and allow them the right to arm themselves as they see fit.

If their neighbors have weapons as well, then they may quiet down.

So what.

[agent]

Don't forget what we did to Japan.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/
This should really be the true web site
http://www.whitehouse.org/
God does things in threes.
La La La.

And Bush still is the Texas Long Horn, Texas hold em playing non Jack ASS (Pupet) that is holding the A-bomb as his Ace card.

Fission or Fusion?

[port3389]

Has anyone heard what *kind* of nuclear weapons Pakistan, India, N. Korea suposedly have? There is a huge difference between Fission and Fusion bombs. The TV news dosen't seem to know the difference between a radiation car bomb (aka dirty bomb), the Moab bomb, and a 50 megaton fusion bomb.

Better Iraq before N.K.

[KnarfO]

...and not just because Iraq has oil. An armed conflict w/ NK will be an order of magnitude above and beyond the carnage we've seen in Iraq, and will most likely lead to a global conflict involving China.

Better we start with something less complicated, learn from the mistakes we make in Iraq, and get our millitary prepared for the much bigger job of fighting NK.

At the same time, you can exhaust all diplomatic options in Asia, so no one says "The US jumped the gun!" on NK, like they did w/ Iraq.

Mod parent funny!

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the funniest comment on Slashdot today. Mod it appropriately!

Peace

[daigu]

To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."

Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?

Re:Peace

[kilfarsnar]

Good point. I'd like to add, "the ends don't justify the means, the ends are the means." It's along the same lines.

Killing flies with a flyswatter- better long-term

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

What's that old adage about catching more flies?

It took Europe (and the rest of the world) YEARS to realize that toothless agreements made with a certain German tyrant were ineffective and diplomacy had to give way to the use of force.

This is why there will always come a time when force becomes necessary (same as with human-human interactions), although we would obviously try to keep this to a minimum.

There will also come times when a country that believes that it is in the right (even to the disagreement of others), and has the bravery and might to make things right, does so ;) This is also not unlike relations down at the person-to-person level. History will hopefully show that this whole Iraq thing, for example, wasn't a mistake, just a "short-term cost to achieve long-term gain" decision.

In any event, I wish that idealists would please give up their pipe dreams of world peace through diplomatic means only. It won't happen. As long as there will be violence in our society (bar fights, spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime), there will be idiots in power that must be stopped with the use of force.

When...

[simpl3x]

When Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans... fly planes into American buildings, I'll worry. Until then, we could act like the rational, peace-loving country we aspire to be. Perhaps we could begin by not telling the Iranians that they are evil, when moderate forces are at work changing the country. Shortly thereafter, moderates are eliminated from the ballots! Shocking...

We are proving to be extremely inept at preventing Nuclear proliferation, and it has all arrived under the current administration.

Facts

[fadethepolice]

Cia world factbook North Korea
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factboo k/geos/ kn.html

Cia world factbook Iran
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /geos/ ir.html

I can't find the link, but I read a news article this week that said South Korea would be counting on 690,000 troops from the U.S. in the event of an attack from North Korea. Time for Japan to stop teaching ASIMO to dance and give him an RPG

Re:Go ask Ward Churchill

[gelfling]

No doubt. Just remember that an unpredictable unbalanced third world tyrannical despot has the capability if not the intent to kill you. I grew up all through the cold war and the notion that you could go to sleep because if anyone tried to kill us they would get the same AND THEY UNDERSTOOD that was meaningful balance to maintain. today we have lunatics in Korea and Iran who openly say "I don't care what you do - my ideology of destroying you is far more important to me than any restraint or failsafes or political gains and games that might accrue to me by merely threatening you."

Supposed to Fail

[man2525]

U.S. diplomatic efforts with North Korea have been set up to fail...I'm not sure why...

Absent From the Korea Talks: Bush's Hard-Liner

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS (NYT) 1215 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 3 , Column 1

Editors' Note Appended

ABSTRACT - John R Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control, was barred by North Korea from participating in sensitive talks last week after he called North Korea 'hellish nightmare'; incident highlights his role in his 27 months in office, during which he has shattered diplomatic niceties and stirred anger within ranks; supporters see him as truth teller and policy innovator who speaks his mind, even at risk of upsetting diplomatic strategies; critics seem him as policy zealot who runs roughshod over rules of diplomacy and undercuts his colleagues; on at least three occasions intelligence services have stepped in to quiet him, in one case saying testimony he was preparing was unverifiable; photo (M)

Also, from a left-leaning website referencing the same article (I didn't want to pay for the story)...

After Bolton delivered a cataract of invective aimed at the country and its leadership ("a hellish nightmare," he called it) the North Koreans shot back, calling Bolton "human scum."

and

Asked by the New York Times what the administration's policy on North Korea is, Bolton "strode over to a bookshelf, pulled off a volume and slapped it on the table. It was called 'The End of North Korea.'" "'That,' he said, 'is our policy.'"

"the majority of Iraqis" do want "Islamic Law".

[khasim]

Check out the statistics. The majority of Iraqis are Shiite and their mullahs have long standing ties with Iran.

You might want to look up the "Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution" and its activies/membership in Iraq and their ties with Iranian mullahs.

http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2003-04/25 /article14.shtml

Here's Rice's support for Islamic law: http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/021207/2 002120722.html

Hmmm, looking at those URL's, it's plain to see why you don't know what you're talking about. That stuff isn't covered very well in the US media.

Re:"the majority of Iraqis" do want "Islamic Law".

[deanj]

If you're under the impression that the majority of the Iraqi people want the oppression that the Islamic Fascists want to bring, then you're sadly mistaken.

Delivery systems?

[steelvadi]

Also sorry if someone posted this already, but what kind of delivery systems do they have available at this point?

What can they strike is most important now, and please don't start talking about suitcases in New York.

Re:Delivery systems?

[cdrguru]

New York is an unlikely target. Seoul is far more likely to be a hostage. And Tokyo. With those two cities held hostage, they can pretty much get whatever they want. Reunification with the South, under their terms. Non-agression pact with Japan, including trade - meaning Japan becomes a client state. Korea and Japan's animosity goes back over 1,000 years and they finally have the tools to make the Japan do whatever they want. And economic domination is just the beginning - they are likely to want to avenge the women Japan captured and turned into brothel slaves. This would make for an interesting state of affairs in Japan.

The question is are we going to let them?

Re:Delivery systems?

[steelvadi]

Yes I was worried about such a devolpment, I am all for reunification. But on North korea's terms? No.

Besides being able to aim warheads at targets near is just the beginning, in the next decade we will most likely see North Korea increase it's striking range and eventually gain ICBM capability. Then they will really be on the map permanently.

I wish there was something that could be done to prevent it, or at least a regime change there, even the chinese think the north Koreans are crazy! =(

So, The Bomb makes you smart??

[KnarfO]

Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).

How the hell do you look at Pakistan and say they haven't done stupid things since they went nuclear??

Was selling their nuke designs to Iran and NK smart?
Was supporting Al-Quaida smart?
Is fomenting a rebellion in the Kashmir smart?

And with all that said, yes, Pakistan will probably prove to be MUCH more prudent than a government like, say, that of Kim Jong Ill. No one there will think twice about selling their technology to the highest bidder *cough* Osama *cough*...

Define "real good".

[khasim]

Yes, we failed to capture Bin Laden, but I think real good was done there.

The "President" of Afghanistan cannot leave Kabul.

Women are raped and murdered outside of Kabul.

Opium production is back to its pre-Taliban levels.

Huge profits from the drug trade are being funneled to the terrorist supporters who then fund the attacks in Iraq.

Warlords control most of the countryside.

If you wear a tee-shirt saying "I'm an American" and walk across Afghanistan, you will be killed or kidnapped.

The Taliban still have support amongst the people in the country and once we leave, they will most likely be back in power.

This is "real good"?

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=go odwin

Cool Nuke Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out this cool video of a nuke going off in an underground test.


http://www.big-boys.com/articles/nuketest.html


Amazing video.

... Long Hair ...

[ninjagin]

North Korea has taken a very big step, today.

I was very sorry to get this news, especially because it takes the focus off of North Korea's real problem: long and/or unkempt hair. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4157121.st m

Good grooming is more important than ever!

Resumed? No. Continued? Yup.

[KnarfO]

Note to Moby Cock:

NK never had any intention to, nor did they ever, stop work toward building a nuclear weapon.

Thank you.

Fair enough, but...

[KnarfO]

...just curious, what makes you think China would not respond to a US nuclear attack on NK?

thx.

Re:Fair enough, but...

[GPLDAN]

Stratfor and others have examined the issue with some depth. Deterrence theory is very complicated subject, but it boils down to a non MAD situation. Would the Chinese risk a nuclear exchange with the U.S. when reports speculate that only a few PRC missiles could reach the U.S. today? The Chinese can't successfully test sub launched nukes, this is google-able. They only have land based ICBMs, and much of it is Soviet SS-18 era tech. The U.S. would likely detect such a launch, and slam the CnC of the PRC with everything it had.

In 10 years, that may no longer be the case, but (and I'm completely speculating) the Chinese may not think they can win a nuclear exchange.

Re:Fair enough, but...

[bluGill]

What makes you think NK as it stands now is China's friend? They are speaking terms, but that is about all. China is not stupid enough to believe NK is ruled by other than a lunatic.

Criminal Relativization of The Holocaust

[Baldrson]

Watch it, bub.

The next time you're in Germany or Canada, you might be arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated for relativizing The Holocaust in those countries via the Internet.

Bullshit alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt that those sanctions include food. Please provide sources that say they are being deprived of foodstuffs. And then show that it's *only* the US driving these sanctions. I don't think you can.

NK spends the bulk of its money on its military, like 40% of its GDP. It could buy food if it wanted to do so.

Re:Bullshit alert

[Anonymous Coward]

More like 30% of GDP gets devoured by the military, but your point is still valid. That's why the economy has collapsed and people are starving to death.

"Admits" is US spin.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word "admit" here implies that Kim has come over, hat in hand, eyes on the floor, apologizing. But it's in fact a chest thumping bravado, as in, "you are damned right we have nuclear weapons and you'd better stop messing with us or we will use them."

"Admits", as if Kim thinks it's wrong... It's a boast, and a warning, not an admission.

We should show them "Hostility"..

[TheCeltic]

Yeah.. the peace loving N. Korean govt. If they want, we can show them just how hostile we can be (toward unstable, immoral, communist countries)

No Hitler was Worse

[mathmathrevolution]

Excuse me, but your primary "source" of information regarding death tolls is an article without any citations from a propagana website. It also happens to be highly exaggerated.

I agree with the following statement from wikipedia:

"How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin

When comparing death tolls, its important to keep in mind that the 8 to 20 million of people "killed" by Stalin for the most part are not people who were deliberately killed in the purges between 1936 and 1938. The 8 to 20 million is overwhelmingly people who incidentally died in famines that were partially the result of Stalin's economic policies.

I think including the famine numbers in the "death toll" figure is legitimate, even if those deaths were unintentional. If you don't think that's its reasonable to compare Hitler's Holocaust to Stalin's unintended economic blunders, then Hitler's death toll is far, far greater.

If you do think its perfectly fair to attribute deaths that are a direct if unintentional result of their actions to somebody's death toll, then I contend that nearly all fatalities of WWII (excepting China, Japan, and other Pacific casualties) are on Hitler's shoulder's. That would bring Hitler's death toll to about 70 million.

Either way, Hitler was the worse of the monsters.

Re:No Hitler was Worse

[vertinox]

Well that's because Hitler lost and Stalin didn't have an occupying army digging through his territories...

Well there was the 70,000 Polish Officers the Germans dug up during the later part of the war.

That and starvation was a method of execution mind you... Out of the I think only a fraction of the 600,000 German POW's ever came back (wasn't it out of the 90,000 that were captured at Stalingrad only 7,000 survived the Gulags).

Stalin also used starvation against the Kulaks (the farmer groups) and put them on Collectives and took away a great deal of their food.

That and Russians never really had efficient methods for doing things so no one will really know how many had died.

The point is that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. The problem that most people should see is that he was our ally (and he did have anti-Jew campaigns in the later era of his life) and were ignorant of the fact that we let him get away with some of the worse atrocities under our noses. (ie the summary execution of Cossacks pows that US and British forces handed back to Stalin after the war).

Still... He is dead and Kruschev denouced him and they dug him up and put him elsewhere, but you can say one was worse than the other. They were both extremely evil men.

Re:No Hitler was Worse

[mathmathrevolution]

First, I will take for granted that its obvious that I'm not endorsing Stalin's merely by saying "Hitler was worse" (I could hardly imagine more meager praise). But I think you're mistaken when you claim Stalin used starvation as a form of execution. The liquidation of the Kulaks as a class was performed with traditional methods: property was redistributed, farms were collectivized, and, when necessary, force was used to reign in rebellious Kulaks and the Orthodox church officials who deliberately sabotaged Russia's agricultural future knowing thousands would starve because of their actions. (During a famine orthodox priests claimed farm collectivization was a sign of apocalypse and encouraged peasants to binge on livestock while workers in the cities starved. Because the livestock (horses, cows, pigs, chickens) are not just food but a vital component in the broader agricultural system their actions would propigate the famine into the next decade). Also USSR choose to deport grain during the famine in order to speed up their industrialization. This necessarily was going to kill people, but they believed (rightly as it turns out) that industrialization was necessary for them to endure against hostile neighbors. So, yeah USSR starved people but they would have fed them if they had more food -- It wasn't an "execution". The situation was exacerbated in WWII when large tracts of fertile land were destroyed to prevent their cooption by Nazi forces. During the Nazi invasion many people were forced to subsist on sawdust. As they reconquered lands they became aware of the annhilation the Nazis perpetrated against their people. I don't think its a moral offense that they didn't squander their precious little food supply sustaining Nazi POWs and the POWs of Nazi collaborators.

Politics on SlashDot

[powderbluedictator]

Isn't this supposed to be a site where nerds like myself can discuss the various attribute on AMD and Intel Processors, or SCO's latest unix shennaniggans. However, when a thread about North Koreas nuclear policy starts, it's flooded with over 1500 comment, more than any other today. When did slashdot turn into FreeRepublic of DU??

Re:Politics on SlashDot

[smash]

Preferences, turn off politics.

Simple, no?

Most "nerds" are intellectuals, and that includes political debate.

Personally, I think NK's "fuck you" attitude towards negotiations with the US is great. Its about time someone had the balls to stand up and tell the US administration to mind their own fucking business.

smash.

Kim Jong-il is the US's bastard child

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh would you quit with your dick waving. You'll poke some kid's eye out.

Let's take a step back. Say about the second Sino-Japanese War. Kim Il-sung is a war hero (so you understand the cult of personality) for maintaining resistance against the Japanese occupation (and rightly so given the horrific conditions of Japanese rule).

The Sino-Japanese War spills over into WWII, America turns its back on the Russians, and the Korean peninsula kicks off the start of the Cold War. At the time, Kim Il-Sung was very much given to the idea of land reform in Korea (read communism if you'd like) and very much had the support of the Korean people. The US, given its fears about the Communist, was very much afraid of what Kim Il-sung might do. The terms of the election to be held in Korea after WWII were strictly unfavorable to the north (remember the land reform issue), and Kim Il-sung did not participate, and was given control of the north.

Now remember, previous to all this, Korea had gone nearly 15 years without self-rule. They had already endured the brutal occupation of Japan, and were very much of the mind to get the foreigners out so they could go back to all things Korean.

The splitting of the peninsula pretty much ended that idea, and all things considered, the US presence didn't help much (at least the Soviets pulled out).

Previous to the Korean War, there were minor skirmishes along the outlying islands, provoked by both sides in an attempt the reunify the peninsula. Tensions were high, and I imagine Kim Il-Sung felt pretty much betrayed.

Some underhanded deals with the Soviets and the Chinese, and Kim Il-Sung responds to the provocations of the south with the start of the Korean War.

Now, I assure you, Kim Il-Sung was no slouch as far political affairs go (he had, after all, gotten the support of China and the Soviets, who really didn't want to get involved with Korea), and most likely left a cabinet to sustain North Korea after he died.

That was a little more than ten years ago. Enter Kim Jong-il (who by all intelligence reports is pretty much a flake) Without his cabinet; North Korea would have probably already fallen apart.

Given the crop failures, the trade embargoes (and people wonder why the north is starving), the failure of Japan to even admit what they did during the war (check out Camp 731 for more info), and the uninformed saber rattling; is it any wonder why the DPRK is acting the way it is?

This is a Korean affair. It will be solved by Koreans, and not through the selective history and swagger of idiots such as yourself (which seems to be the norm for US foreign policy).

Re:Kim Jong-il is the US's bastard child

[reallocate]

Thanks for playing simple-minded analyst.

How are your statements, if accurate, and your assumptions and extrapoloations, if accurte, at all relevant to my statement?

Regardless of the mechanisms that brought about its creation, the DPRK is a brutal totalitarian regime whose behavior deprives it of any right to exist.

I cannot comprehend the personal morality of anyone who would value the alleged right of the DPRK government to exist more than the right of the North Korean people to free and healthy lives. The latter will not happen so long as the former exists.

Re:Kim Jong-il is the US's bastard child

[Anonymous Coward]

The DPRK would not have existed without US intervention.

It seems your failure is to comprehend anything at all.

Re:Kim Jong-il is the US's bastard child

[iminplaya]

The guy does this in every thread he posts in. Once you have more than one discussion with him, you'll see what I'm talking about. Only the governments that go along with his thinking have a right to exist to him, and to hell with the 49% that might disagree. To him 51% of the vote is all that's needed to be legit, no matter how they might treat the other half. If we were ever to invade Korea, it will have absolutely nothing to do with freeing the Koreans, and have everything to do with "protecting our interests". The guy we put in could be just as bad. We certainly wouldn't allow them to vote in anyone that might be considered "unfriendly".

Re:The koreans are right

[fishbowl]

"You might want to take a few minutes and open a couple history books"

I've done that, and what surprises me is the long life expectancy of contemporary politicians.

Stalin is the worst

[Anonymous Coward]

By far. Stalin was the worst.

Now, Hitler was more evil, but in terms of the human cost, Stalin is the all-time champ by far.

Seriously, push yourself away from the propaganda, don't worry about offending "groups", and think about it.

Stalin is the worst. Ask somebody from Ukraine.

Re:Stalin is the worst

[mathmathrevolution]

yes, that is exactly what my post just disproved.

Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT

[workindev]

Israel? North Korea comes to mind, but the Resolutions were blocked by china AFAIK

BZZZT. There are no other countries that have UN resolutions passed under the 7th chapter of the UN charter. If you had any clue about the UN, you would know that Chapter 7 resolutions are the only kind that allow member states that are not party to the resolution to enforce with military or economic action.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02 -un-wmd_x.htm

I see your link, and raise you one:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/: Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/200 3/david_kay_10022003.html: We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN.

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/pu blications/General_Powell.htm
think YOU are making a fool of yourself by claiming "well known facts" without backing

Without backing, huh? The only thing you have provided is an op-ed that directly contradicts your own claim. You said "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. And THAT is well known and documented" and then "backed" that up with piece called "Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Tenuous at Best". Which are you arguing? That there was no connection, or that there was a tenuous connection?

Here are some more sources:
Iraq-al Qaeda link comes in focus
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
US State Department Indictment
Not so long ago, the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda were conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom was right
Saddam Hussein offered Bin Laden asylum
Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
UN envoy confirms terrorist meeting
Ansar al-Islam: Back in Iraq

Taiwan is the real china

[Anonymous Coward]

The big country to the north is a lot of chinamen that are being ruled the way they have been for thousands of years. Oh, they call it "communism", but its simply dictatorship, same as its always been.

Taiwan is the real china, because its china as it *should* be.

Re:Slashdot - bastion of Anti-American rhetoric?

[kilfarsnar]

" The vast majority of posts here *always* blame the U.S. for every problem going on in the world.

This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.

As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.

"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."

Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly? But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.

I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.

"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."

This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.

Re: Checklist...and its not just about oil

[Coryoth]

If "that other country" could have shelled Tel Aviv, Riyadh, or Kuwait City, etc back to the stone age using only conventional artillery, then everyone's favorite deposed dictator would not have been found literally hiding in a hole in the ground.

Which, given the Inauguration and State of the Union speeches with comments about "spreading freedom and democracy" combined with the display of willingness to use military might to do so (Iraq), pretty much says to any world dictator:

"Get yourself some bargaining firepower fast. You don't need to be able to stop an invasion, you just need to be able kill a lot of innocent people"

Given Bush's comments about Syria, do you think they might be doing precisely what you suggest and setting up as much conventional military firepower aimed at Tel Aviv as they can manage?

Jedidiah.

IHBT

[overbom]

I'm glad to see someone on the left finally supporting totalitarian fascist dictatorial regimes!

Seriously... go read some Christopher Hitchens or something. There is a very real difference between corrupt business practices and the practices of totalitarian fascist regimes.

Gas Prices

[Rufosx]

Part of the current high prices of gasoline are directly related to the cost of crude (which has many, many factors with OPEC being by far the largest). And part of it has to do with federal and local regulations.

On the federal side, oil companies are now spending many billions of dollars upgrading their refineries to meet new low-sulphur regulations. This is a good thing, but expensive.

On the local side, areas that have clean air problems are either forced into using clean-air reformulated gasoline or choose to do so proactively. Unfortunatley, there are now 8 different specs of gasolines mandated across the country. So now a refinery needs to make several different specs of gasoline, each for a specific market. If a refinery that supplies a certain market has some downtime, there will be fewer other refineries to cover the market, causing prices to increase. The other major issue is storage : with so many different specs of gasoline, transportation and storage becomes more expensive.

And don't forget that demand in the US continues to increase year after year, yet there are no new refineries being built. Same or less supply, more demand, you do the math.

Iraq makes a very little difference in the grand scheme of things, really. Bush did not invade Iraq for oil. Of course, I wouldn't rule out revenge for trying to kill his dad.

What this really means...

[Anonymous Coward]

NK probably does not have nukes.

They're playing poker. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this as not only a possibility, but something with high probability.

Here is my Global view

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't matter.

U.S is already planning to strike at North Korea.

[savage_panda]

Why else would Bush be pushing for the missile shield to be installed? So that when the U.S starts stirring up things in the middle east and far east, There will be an umbrella to stop the retaliations from striking back. It is highly likely that the plan was already set in motion decades before and that the reason for the missile shield defense was a direct result of this line of thinking.

I'm sure that means something to you.

[khasim]

I'm hoping English isn't your first language.

Your sentence is meaningless as you've written it.

Re:Then it's about time

[HiThere]

That's true. But then they haven't been intentionally antagonizing it.

We might find out how they feel if we attempted to assemble an invasion force. I suspect that they'd all say NIMBY.

Who's right is it?

[chriguhose]

Well, it's a little late in the discussion when i was browsing through this thread.

Still i wonder about one thing and i didn't see it discussed yet.

Who and upon what criteria is decided, that one country or another is eligable to posses wmd's? How can it be some countries like the US, UK, France and others can tell other countries to not persuade the development of wmd's if they themselves sit on a whole bunch of them?

Anyone up for an answer other than: "Because they are evil!"

Here's a list http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm/ showing 33 countires that have wmd capabilities.

No one says he was good.

[khasim]

And this somehow makes it better? Oh he only killed a couple hundred thousand, so he's just a bad guy, not a really bad guy. ??

I'm sure that if you want to think of it that way, you can.

Rather, how about some world history and perspective to correct the bullshit that people in the US seem to believe.

The fact is, other people have killed lots more people than Saddam did.

The fact is, people were/are being killed in African countries at a higher rate than were being killed in Iraq right before we invaded.

If it is pure body counts, Iraq was way down the list.

So, why was it so necessary to spend $1 BILLION a WEEK to get rid of some 3rd world tin pot dictator who couldn't even travel across his own country without body doubles?

By any criteria you choose (other than oil), there are many more places to help that would cost a fraction of that amount.

Always Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

The people don't really want any more war, neither in NK or SK, or most place else. It's just when leaders start talk about it that people flame up and rationalize it. Sheep bleat.

Islam != Fascism.

[khasim]

If you're under the impression that the majority of the Iraqi people want the oppression that the Islamic Fascists want to bring, then you're sadly mistaken.

Nor have I ever said that they wanted Fascism.

If you're going to troll with strawmen, you really need to learn the terms you use.

Cause Bush can't spell Korea.

[jm91509]

Iraq is shorter. Iran also managable.

Korea just complicated

Re:Killing flies with a flyswatter- better long-te

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance is astounding. Diplomacy is more than meetings and treaties, it includes force in the threat of use and discrete use. Those you claim are idealists, at least in part, are the individuals who seek greater efficiency in the use of force. As to the commonly trotted out claim against Hitler, recognize that a Great War had shattered all social and all institutions that quite effectively had governed Europe previously. It is difficulty, nearly impossible, to imagine it now but IL had been reality since the defeat of Napoleon by the allied monarchies (constitutional, absolute, and enlightened varieties). The Great War due to racial tension and shocks from the nationalisation of Germany in 1871 was not considered any indication of the future, rather (due its devastation) as signal of the end of practical use of war for policy. Look back now not from the present but from the view of Neville who arranged it and his history-it was all appropriate and held promise for success, and would have excepting Hitlers nationalist-cult and economically required motivated war-drives..

YEAH, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Winning a nuclear exchange is like winning the special olympics... [insert inappropriate punchline here]

All joking aside, it's very true. :-P

Native Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a good thing the native Americans didn't have nukes...or else this conversation would not be happening!

Self incrimination and we sit!?

[AKosygin]

Can someone explain this to me?

Through our shotty intelligence we "guess" that it is "highly likely" that Saddam has nuclear weapons, and then we invade; but when the North Koreans freely admit they have nuclear weapons (unlike Saddam whom denied it more) we sit there idly by!?

I would think that if the North Koreans admitted to it, it would be the PERFECT rallying point for a war because "they possess WMDs!"

We invaded Iraq based on rescueing the citizens from its dictator, and because they very likely have WMDs. Now we sit and negotiate when they "publicly claim" they DO HAVE WMDs and they are treating the citizens worst? What kind of logic is that!? Bush-logic?

This shouldn't be necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it impossible to discuss things in a civil manner. Do you really need to prove the other wrong?

Bush and his cronies never expected the country to fall apart so fast. Expensive yes, but they underestimated the hostility and tactics that were to happen afterwards. Basically, under Saddams Regime there have been very strong groups, that are now competing for power.

There's a big difference between motive and Reality. Official motives for the war has been largely fictional and obviously not in par with Reality, thus we witness the consequences of that.

Besides,
Bombs do not love make.

How about Saudis flying into American buildings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that scary? I thought the actions of that Saudi group of terrorists who brought down the WTC was pretty scary. They were nearly all, to a man, Saudis, including the 'mastermind' behind the attacks.

Yet the US did nothing but shake hands and trade additional money with the Saudis, and only briefly chased Saudi ringleaders in Afghanastan prior to attacking Iraq, which had no connection to the Saudis who blew up the WTC.

Since then, the US has only given the Saudis more money, while ignoring the civil rights abuses and intolerant and backward policy and politics of the saudi kingdom; suddenly vilifying the Iraqi goverment (that the US previously armed trained and supported while they ignored the Iraqi government's genocidal activities in the 1980-90's as a saudi proxy of some sort.

So does that mean that if North Korea blew up some american buildings, the US will invade China?

Way to go, AC

[thelizman]

I'm not worried about the hardline elements in the American regime, especially since I voted them there. I am worried about some of the hardline elements in my own communities, however. Sheesh man, take your relicor.

Whoops

[thebigbadme]

There goes the neighborhood.

I have just one question

[Snaller]

What does it matter if it's true or not? Kim Jong Il admitting to having WMDs is already more proof than was necessary to invade Irak...


When Bush invades - can Kim Jong Il hit Hollywood with his nukes?

As If

[thelizman]

Soooo, you're telling me America is the only country on this planet that tries to tell other countries what to do? That somehow we're unique in this "do as we say, not as we do" pattern? Because if you honestly believe that, then you're one of lenin's useful idiots.

Re:As If

[trisight]

Oh no.. don't get me wrong.. I'm just saying that history is repeating itself.

You're sick.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're sick. That's really all there is to it. You're a twisted example of the kind of self centered xenophobia. You see people who aren't like you as non-people. It may be true that there are many, many people in these places you would like to destroy who would like to see you killed, but in that opinion THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT FROM YOU! If genocide were actually the solution to the worlds problems, it wouldn't be successful along racial, religious, or national lines. It would only work if it were people who think EXACTLY THE WAY YOU DO, regardless of any other affiliation, who were removed from the earth.

Reason for Iraq war to rest of world was not WMD

[bezuwork's friend]

While WMD were the main reason given within the US for Gulf War II, it was not the reason given to the rest of the world. The reason given to the rest of the world was based on UNSC resolution 678 which authorized the use of force for Gulf War I. UNSC resolution 683 was the cease fire resolution and it only suspended the authorization to use force given in res. 678 (i.e. didn't withdraw it). Res. 683 had a requirement that Iraq return the area (not just Iraq) back to the state it had prior to the Kuwait invasion. The Bush admin. argued that since Iraq had not returned the area back to the state before Kuwait was invaded, the authorization to use force was reawakened.

It's a little more complicated than that, of course, but that is the general outline of the justification.

There's good reason for that

[Solandri]

What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.

There's good reason for that. North Korea does not consider South Korea to be a legitimate nation. They think South Korea is merely a puppet state, and consider the Korean War to have been between North Korea and the United States.

The U.S. doesn't want to validate that line of thinking, so it has always insisted that any negotiations be between either North Korea and South Korea, or between all five major parties involved in the war (both Koreas, Japan, the U.S., and China). Unless North Korea recognizes South Korea as a legitimate nation, you will never see the U.S. agree to direct talks with only North Korea.

South Korean Sunshine Policy vs Bush Policy

[gbdc]

South Korea has been trying to open North Korea by pouring down economic aids, and forgiving many of North Koreans typical irrationalities. Heck, North Korean vessel crossed border and killed several South Korean soldiers, but the economic adis still continue until this day.

However, Bush has taken the exact opposite approach. America's invasion of Iraq is an obvious proof to North Korea what would come next unless North Korea kneels before America like Libya.

Which policy is more effective in opening North Korea and helping the poor people there?

I insist it is South Korean's Sunshine policy. North Korea has already opened many of its doors, and it can only continue to do so as its economy slowly integrates with that of South Korea.

For example, a new joint economic cooperative area opened in a North Korean border city of GaeSung, and hundreds of South Korean companies are dying to invest in the area to take advantage of cheap but intelligent North Korean labour force.

Remember how China began to change? It didn't start from military or political perspectives. It started from economic changes, and it's continuing strong.

Thus, if America really wants to remove the North Korean 'threat' then it should invest a lot of its capital and allow trading with North Korea.

What is effective may not be always obvious. Invasion seems thrilling and obvious from the typical (republican) American perspectives, but history has repeatedly shown that is not the case at all.

Are you SERIOUS?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It was important to invade Iraq (which was not a
> threat to the US and had essentially no viable
> army and no WMDs) simply to save it's people
> from their leader

Based on this logic, we should NUKE the USA to
save you guys. The UN sanctions used to save Iraq
from it's leaders killed over 2 million women and
children. US war has killed over 200 000 people.
You think it's worth the capture of one sick old man?

Your "elected" leader is wreaking and attacking countries like Hitler.
I really hope your country gets "saved" before he comes to try and save us.

Re:Are you SERIOUS?

[calstraycat]

That quote is not my position. I was paraphrasing the position of the post I was responding to.

cause and effect in a time warp

[Anonymous Coward]

step 1: establish an increasingly brutal tyranny over your populace

step 2: develop a nuclear weapons program (this does take a "small" bit of time)

step 3: threat and posture for conflict and hint at your "new capability"

step 4: continue this for several years

step 4: blame existence and development of said nuclear program on recent problems and feeling threatened from an outside source (another country with nuclear weapons)

Perhaps if I break into someones house, shoot at them, beat their kids and rape their wife and someone in the home attempts to stop me with violent means then I can later absolve myself of any responsibility in the matter by calling my actions "self defence."

Sadly, politics will get in the way of the simplicity of the matter... that Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic who is apparently armed with very powerful weapons. Rational discussion should not be expected by Slashbots however as they are perfect examples of squandering freedom and liberty.

After all, important life decisions should ALWAYS be made by those with agendas centered around hate and malice towards an opposing (but equally short sided) political party.

Not true

[rsheridan6]

If a leader is a gambler, he can try to bluff concessions out of his enemies with nukes. He also may turn out to be wrong, and unintentionally end up with mutually assured destruction, because somebody he thought would back down pushed back instead.

In 1939, the UK and France had promised that they would declare war on Germany if Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler did so anyway, gambling that they were bluffing and would back down. He lost. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991, betting that the US wouldn't do anything about it. He lost too. Neither of them wanted war (at least not at that time, with those enemies), but war was what they got.

Now imagine if either of those men had had nukes. They would be even more inclined to bluff their way into a cheap victory, and while they would probably not start off by nuking another country, it could come to that if their opponents didn't back down.

So far, no gambler has had control of nuclear weapons, but they've only been around for 50-some years, and in relatively stable countries. If nukes proliferate (and they are), sooner or later somebody's going to make a bet with them and lose.

MAD RULEZ OK!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The real trouble comes when terrorists make a deal with North Korea saying
> "ok, tell the U.S. to get out of OUR country or you'll push the button."

That would mean real equality among nations.

Now we have US ripping apart NPT, while at the same time trying to enforce it elsewhere:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner8.html

And this is a shock what?

[sxmjmae]

I travel to Korea a few years back.
The average person on the street believed the North already had Nuclear weapons and would have no problems using them. The only fear the North has was what the US would do as pay back. Even if the population dies the North Korean Government wants to stay in power.

The Country is suffering and starving. The millitary is in charge and get feed first. They are using the threat of nuclear weapons as means to get food for the people.

My worry is they they will attempt a blitz into South Korea to snag as much food/resources as possible and then quickly retreat back. Using the threat of nuclear weapons to stop any real retaliation occuring.

With each passing year they feel they are being are backed into a coner and the only weapon they really have to get out is nuclear.

Axis of evil^H^H^H^Hoil?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting that Bush's axis of evil was unified by two things: oil and a willingness to price oil in euros. The oil angle isn't much talked about when it comes to NK, but it's interesting that the potential seems to be there (the russians are interested, for example):

http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/nk-oil3.htm
http:// www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/NorthKorea Oil.htm
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/200 5/01/24/0 44.html

So US should invade ISRAEL!

[Anonymous Coward]

> What does it matter if it's true or not? Kim
> Jong Il admitting to having WMDs is already more
> proof than was necessary to invade Irak...

Yeah. UN should really embargo Israel.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner8.html

Maybe US could give up their nuclear weapons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe US could give up their nuclear weapons so North Korea and Iran wouldn't feel threatened and have any need to keep theirs either?

If you give up yours, I'm sure they'll give up theirs as well.

Hey You! In the Glass House!

[Anonymous Coward]

And you cannot call alterior motives, because there is no oil there.

You also cannot call "alterior" motives, because there is no such thing. Ulterior motives, however, are always a problem...

Look at me!

[NuShrike]

Every keeps suggesting that Iran "might" have them from every political figure down to Rice on her last leg of her debutant tour.

And that soon, "people" might have to start breathing down the back of Iran's pants (just like how you guys did with Iraq).

Look at us! We REALLY got them! Come on, play with us!

Don't be silly

[Shihar]

Don't be silly. Japan neither needs nor wants nuclear weapons. Nuking Tokyo would net you the same result as nuking New York or Washington. Namely, the US would promptly level of the offending nation in question with nuclear weapons and no questions asked. The defense ties the US has with Japan are very clear. If you attack Japan, you might as well have invaded California.

There isn't a reason in the world for Japan to have a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon in Japan would cause the population to riot as they are VERY anti nuclear, suck up pile of money, and piss too many people off. When it comes to defense, Japan might as well be sovereign US soil and can be expected to be defended just as tenaciously as you would expect the US to defend California.

Japan does have to worry about North Korea, but on the arms side, there is nothing more Japan can do except give a thumbs up to the US building a missile defense system and footing some of the bill. If North Korea launches nukes at Japan it means that they have gone insane and forfeited their nation, in which case all the nukes in the world won't be of any help.

Listen to the DN! interview

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really listen to the interview I linked earlier on Democracy Now! They grilled him on precisely that subject, and his reply was fairly cogent - they had been trying to get the study published for quite a while, but the Lancet was extremely rigorous during the peer review process, which delayed the publication for quite a while. This wasn't withheld until just before the election, in fact they had been hoping to publish much earlier.

Re:Korea - & Japan/S Korea

[w42w42]

Pakistan does have serious issues, you are right. Not to mention they didn't even prosecute the physicist because he's now some sort of local hero.

Here's the 'but' though - Nukes are most dangerous when in the hands of a nut-job, and NK's Kim Jong-Il would have to take the prize, making Pakistans Musharraf look like Mother Teresa by comparison.

My big question though now that the genie is out of the bottle, is what will Japan's immediate reaction be, or South Korea's for that matter? I can't imagine China believes that these two countries are both going to sit by while North Korea has the bomb and they don't. I also don't imagine that China want's a nuclear S. Korea or Japan, so that brings us back to N. Korea. I wonder maybe if China isn't as much in North Korea's corner as they really think.

umm...what??

[interactive_civilian]

Citizen of Earth said:

It's okay if psychotic dictators get The Bomb just as long as democracy isn't imposed on anyone else.

Umm, that is a pretty deep thing to infer from my post. I don't believe that I mentioned anything regarding democracy in my original post.

Look at the world today and tell me which sovereign nations are invading other sovereign nations. I count one, but then again I'm not completely up on current events of a lot of the smaller nations in the world. My arguments have nothing to do with political systems and everything to do with stopping an aggressive foreign invader.

Re: Korea, USA and other rogue states

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I heard about weapons inspectors in Iraq, I have never heard about the owners of the biggest stock of WMDs allowing them in, is the USA somehow different?

In our country (New Zealand) we forced the government to outlaw WMDs. Our 'allies' (USA and UK) have continually applied pressure to the governemnt to reverse the law. While invading the oil-rich Iraq "for having WMDs" they were also trying to force our Government to allow WMDs here!

Let's pre-empt!

[topper24hours]

Our only real choice here is to nuke the shit out of them 1st, before they have a chance to "get" us!

America - The stupidest nation on earth

[charles28c]

Every time I hear Condi Rice blabber about some American philosophical bullshit regarding Cuba or Iran or wherever, I freely admit that I hope someone sticks it to America. Imagine my glee when I saw that North Korea finally made a nuclear weapon while Georgy Boy was busy hunting those imaginary WMD in Iraq. How appropriate that Georgy Boy's fake war opened the door to North Korea. Of course now the story is that it is America's duty to spread democracy around the world, and that Iraq is better off now... hmmm Democracy, while generally good, isn't a panacea. Increasingly, it is being used as a way for rich nations to rape poor ones though such cherished democratic institutions like free trade and globalization. Granted most dictators are bad, but a dictator can say "screw you Haliburton, get the hell out of our country". So here is a news flash: you have already lost the war on terror America if you continue with your current tactics of using democracy as a tool to plunder and manipulate other countries. To win, you need the guy on the park bench in Paris or Istanbul to tip you off if he overhears something sinister. There is no way you'll get that kind of support any time soon. If anything, that guy on the bench is already laughing his head off at the impending Iranian fiasco.

Any N.Koreans posting?

[trawg]

Are there any people from North Korea that have posted in this thread? I've gone through it but can't find anyone.

In threads about how mean China is, there's always either a) Chinese people or b) Westerners living in China posting their opinion based on their feedback. I'd be interested to hear what an actual North Korean actually has to say - but I guess if they have net access at all its firewalled out the wazoo?

America - the stupidest nation on earth

[charles28c]

Every time I hear Condi Rice blabber about some American philosophical bullshit regarding Cuba or Iran or wherever, I freely admit that I hope someone sticks it to America. Imagine my glee when I saw that North Korea finally made a nuclear weapon while Georgy Boy was busy hunting those imaginary WMD in Iraq. How appropriate that Georgy Boy's fake war opened the door to North Korea. Of course now the story is that it is America's duty to spread democracy around the world, and that Iraq is better off now... hmmm Democracy, while generally good, isn't a panacea. Increasingly, it is being used as a way for rich nations to rape poor ones though such cherished democratic institutions like free trade and globalization. Granted most dictators are bad, but a dictator can say "screw you Haliburton, get the hell out of our country". So here is a news flash: you have already lost the war on terror America if you continue with your current tactics of using democracy as a tool to plunder and manipulate other countries. To win, you need the guy on the park bench in Paris or Istanbul to tip you off if he overhears something sinister. There is no way you'll get that kind of support any time soon. If anything, that guy on the bench is already laughing his head off at the impending Iranian fiasco.

You are really being ignorant

[wwind123]

It is not in China's interest to see a neighboring country possess nuclear weapons. More generally, no country would ever like to see any other political force to possess nuclear weaposn, no matter how strong the alliance between the country and the political force would be. That is why Soviet Union did not want to help China develop nuclear weapon even when they were still in honey-moon in 1950's (hence Chinese had to do it on their own). That is why U.S. forced Taiwan to stop nuclear weapon development in 1970's.

Yawn.

[__aaasvk1266]

Yep, nuke weapons are scary. Provided:

you can deliver them on target and on time.

That leaves N. Korea off the Threat Board.

way to go bush

[xshader]

i'm so happy to have a president who lets china take the driver seat of our relations with NK. and now they admit they have nuclear weapons. way to go bush. that is some real progress you made. those non-bilateral talks are really getting somewhere.

It's very smart...

[nazzdeq]

China won't do shit if we nuke Pyong Yang. They're too busy building up the economy. The last thing they need is a war. And even if they do jump bad, it's better to take them now than to deal w/ them later. North Korea might have a nuke or two, so what. They would all die and we might lose LA, no lose there either...hehe. Nuking them now is the best option before they get enough nukes to blackmail the rest of the world. Give us money or we nuke Seoul. Give us food or we nuke Tokyo. Give us everything or we nuke somebody. If you have a nuke, why do anything at all? Just blackmail the liberal retards to give you everything you need. There are plenty of Bill Clintons, Chamberlains, French, Germans around who will oblige you every desire. -Nazz

Seoul would be a crater in 5 minutes

[gtkuhn]

No matter how fast we might be able to annihilate North Korea, they still have thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul right now. There is no way we could get all of them before they pulled the trigger. This would really ruin not just Seoul, but our whole relations with South Korea, I think.

It wasn't even the WMD's

[cassador]

Bush had to appear on national TV in June/July of 2003 to explain to the nation that we did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. Why? Because polls showed that almost 70% of the US population believed that to be the reason.

ermm

[N3wsByt3]

"What to do? Sounds a little like a catch-22, but there is an answer. Don't build the nukes."

No, I just explained why: even when they won't, there is a chance they'll get invaded. That's what happend with Iraq, after all. So, are they going for that option? That's wishful thinking, not the obvious step of countries capable of creating nukes and on bad terms with the USA. As I said, seen that they feel threatened by the USA, those will create nukes. Exactly what N.Korea and Iran is doing.

It only looks like a catch 22 on first sight; in reality, even the USA can't permit to invade one country after another. It would be political and military suicide. I think it's all too obvious the USA has more then it bargened for in Iraq, and I don't think anyone would seriously believe the USA would invade another country, before they settled with Iraq first. Even the roman empire tried to avoid battling on two fronts at the same time.

So, in effect, the invasion of Iraq created at the same time the obvious pressure/threat of the USA *and* provided a period where it will rather bark then bite to other countries.

So, what they *really* think is: let's build nukes as fast as we can, so we're safe by the time the USA would feel arrogant enough to pre-emptively attack again.

As an european, I can relativate that to the current USA government, but I doubt those countries can or will.

And it must be said, while under Clinton relations over the big dipper were pretty good, I think most USA-citizens fail to realise how much sympathy the US has lost even among europeans. 'Our' politicians, being diplomatic, only show the top of the iceberg, really. The opinion about the USA among the people is hugely negative these days, and that sentiment is reflected by all layers of the populace.

Paranoidus Americanus

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans are paranoid.

Re:Paranoidus Americanus

[violently_ill]

if you're not afraid of North Korea, you're not paying attention.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be perfectly honest, of the approximately 20 nations that have either declared they have nukes or may potentially have nukes, the ONLY one that worries me is the United States... the only country to have used them in anger... TWICE.

With American Foreign Policy continually leaning more toward "World Rape", I think it's going to become ever more a priority for smaller nations to acquire what has historically been the world's greatest peace-keeper.

The US stormed into Iraq unchecked, like the bully it is... do you really think they'll do that to North Korea now they have nukes? Not bloody likely...

North Korea Got Nukes?

[TPoise]

So what else is new?

In the words of K.J.I......

[Anonymous Coward]

Theh new whurold is ENEBITABOH!

No money in it.

[Rimbo]

Why would China bother? What does North Korea offer them? As it is, NK's threats give China a bit of elbow room in international relations, as the only country that can really, you know, do anything with NK. "Sure mister Prime Minister... we'll help you with North Korea, if you do this for us..."

Korea's land is pretty much worthless, cold shite. There isn't anything there that China doesn't already have too much of already.

No, I don't think China's gonna do anything like that.

Fox news is Pravda of the Western world

[Anonymous Coward]

"Pravda" Sues Fox For Stealing Its Format

US will attack N. korea

[WeedSmokingGangsterR]

N. Korea and Iran are going to get attacked. By refusing nuclear inspections will start the way, war is America's only hope to stimulate their economy thats the real reason.

JJ's journal

[JJ]

I invite all to read my thoughts on this discussion as posted in my journal.

Re:The reason we trust ourselves with big bombs

[Jim_Callahan]

Is that we know that our government is too rooted in business with the rest of the world to use them. Ever. We bitch a lot on /. about the american government being in the pocket of large economic factions, but you have to admit it keeps the rest of the world hella safe. When our government suddenly starts making independently moral descisions (something which is usually limited to theocracies and empowered monarchies) then I'll lead the push to disable our nukes myself, eh.

pedal power for 20m gives more POWER@!!!

[cheekyboy]

Gee, whats happening, people in power are gettin dumber and dumber. This world is going to shit.

For the price of a nuke, they could have installed 3 pedal power bikes in every household plugged into the power grid, then when 20m people power away, and loose weight, they would all power the whole city, sure any given moment there might be 2-5m max people, but if each person makes 10-30watts, thats ahell more power than a nuke power plant.

Sounds silly, but so silly, that it would actually work, though its more usefull in america so all those fat asses can loose weight and save some power bills.

Other important nuclear installations

[Aquatopia17]

True, but in Soviet Russia, nuclear weapons have old people! (I'm very sorry, but it had to be said)

Re:The reason we trust ourselves with big bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

While I see merit in this arguement, that the USA wont blow up its "trading" partners. it opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of whether the worldwide systematic social, environmental and social rape of countries less fortunate than the USA is worse than a small communist nation having one or two nukes.

Oh yeah, USA is getting a bashing today

and who helped him? IBM DID!!!

[cheekyboy]

Read the history dude, IBM with their top of the line punch card computers helped the nation keep accurate records run the trains on time, keep track of HOW MANY DIED.

Oh and IBM made a TONNE of money, even when they couldnt export it out of germany, they bought up tonnes of property in germany, and also DIDNT Get bombed.

Now where is your 70m figure come from, where are you 30 pages of references and giant EXCELL table detailing every small block of kills?

Hitler was bad, he was just too ambitious and too egotistical, if he only kept a little more quiet and cooporated more, they could have been like china is today, powerfull and not feared.

MOD PARENT UP INSIGHTFUL!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yankee asshats

Enough...

[Simkin1]

I don't care anymore what North Korea has. As an American, I have no intention of paying a dime in extortion money to that psycho-midget. The psycho has starved, suppressed, and brutalized his own people in order to obtain nuclear weapons. I'm tired of playing 'who blinks first' games with the world, and I'm even more tired of some moron overseas making light of 9/11, and making statements about how Bush is 'evil'. Frankly I'm pretty damn happy we went after Afghanistan, and even more so that we went into Iraq. To hell with you people who said that Iraq would be like Vietnam -- what a load of crap; they just voted for the first time in over half a century. To hell with you people who indicate that Bush is making things worse... for the first time there's real potential for Palestinian/Israeli talks working out. To hell with the nay-sayers who are more pissed off that the world is actually being pushed into cleaning itself up. Personally I'm just tired of paying for the rest of the worlds incompetence. The US doesn't OWE the world a DAMN thing. We don't OWE foreign nations money to assist with banking, or monetary woes. We don't OWE the world foreign aid. We don't owe the damn world a thing and yet we still take on the worlds problems. We're still the first place the world turns whenever there's a major problem that needs to be cleaned up. I mean honestly... why the HELL do we need to be sitting at a table with North Korea?? OH that's right... because North Korea doesn't give a damn about China, South Korea, Japan, or any other nation in the area. They know the only nation worth a damn is the US. If europeans who're content to sit on their butts watching the US work think they can do it better... please, by all means go ahead and pay that psycho midget for more of his lies.

Re:Enough...

[Cackmobile]

ummm the palestine/ israel situation is improving not becuase of the us. its because arafat died. moran.

Re:Enough...

[man_ls]

Yasser Arafat was just like every other Muslim who plays in politics, in that he tells the Jihadis one thing, and tells the Western Infidels another -- and everyone believes him.

Re:Enough...

[Cackmobile]

and i would agree with you and my point still stands. sorry about the moran...was having a bad day.

Re:Enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, someone who swallows the Bush doctrine hook line and sinker.

I wish I could be bothered analysing you brain in the interests of science.

Instead of telling the anti-bush's to go to hell, try looking below the surface on the issues you have mentioned. (Instead of restricting yourself to FOX/NBC/etc news)

You may be surprised to find that things are not as clear cut as you imagined...

North Koreans

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill the fucking gooks, eat shit you fuck heads

MOD PARENT DOWN TROLL

[Tobias.Davis]

Yeah, you are that..

Re:Slashdot - bastion of Anti-American rhetoric?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."

SIEG HEIL!!! SIEG HEIL!!!

Your closer than you think. Or maybe honestly willing to admit.

On a side interesting note, we in the West always have a immediate negative reaction to the phrase sieg heil. At least I always have. I have the same mental image I think many people do of a very strange little man with a "unique" moustache. However, did you know it means safe victory when translated?

Re:Slashdot - bastion of Anti-American rhetoric?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo kilfrasnar. This is one of the most level headed posts I have read in a long time.

Megadeth was right...

[Money for Nothin']

"Cold wars are heating up again!"

(not that this much is news to anybody...)

Re:Megadeth was right...

[Cackmobile]

now thats a bad i wanna see tour again.

We already kinda knew this...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/international/07 DISPATCHES.html

Who cares?

[Adolph_Hitler]

More Jobs for the USA. Why do we want to support Korea or Asia? Why do we care if Asia's economy falls?

Actually...

[caveat]

An external neutron source allows you to initate the chain reaction when the conditions in the fissile core are ideal for fission (the neutron multiplication rate [alpha] is at a maximum) and avoid predetonation, where the core initiates and blows itself apart before maximum alpha is achieved and consequently yields less than it should. It's a way of insuring the bombs work right every time, and making the most efficent use of your fissile material - but minimum critical mass is a mathematical function of the material.

See The Nuclear Weapons Archive, Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons for (lots and lots) more info. Brush up on your particle physics first though, it's a hefty read :)

Incidentally, you could theoretically use U-235, Pu-238, Pa-231 [>188kg], Np-237 [~90kg], Am-241 [84 kg], Am-234 [140kg], Cf-249 [5.9kg], Cf-251 [1.94kg], or Cf-252 [2.73kg] for a fission bomb, but only U and Pu are practical.

Ah, the bleat of the self-righteous

[TheConfusedOne]

I hope you feel better. I hope that the persecuation complex doesn't interfere with your life.

The point was that Iraq delcared that they had certain items. Thus it was their responsibility to reconcile the discrepencies. Maybe it was a book keeping error, maybe they actually had the stuff in question. The onus was on them to resolve the issue.

The way they "prove a negative" is to do exactly what South America did when it disarmed. Full, active cooperation with inspectors. You take them to the sites that they ask to see and direct them to some sites that they didn't even think to look at. You certainly don't bury parts and plans under rose bushes, keep biological samples in home refridgerators, or have a whole collection of labs hidden in jails.

Go read the reports from the Iraq Survey Group they're quite informative.

You're welcome to state your opinion as much as you want and I'm welcome to state mine too.

Re:Ah, the bleat of the self-righteous

[Richard_at_work]

So, where are the weapons ready for deployment in 45 minutes? Where is the huge and dangerous nuclear program? Where was the immediate threat?! Bush and Blair got it wrong - the UN security council called them on it, but they went straight on to fuck it up anyway. And what are you talking about, South American disarmament? Brazil blatantly told the UN Nuclear Inspectors that they could not inspect certain places, including areas of enrichment plants - why was this accepted for Brazil and yet isnt for other well known countries?

Economic power is not harmless either

[nnappe]

Economic power is the way to go here. It's not as cool and flashy as military power but then it's also not nearly so expensive in lives.
Thats arguable, there are quite a number of lives lost daily by famine and lack of medical aid.

N. Korea Nuclear Arms

[drsquared]

N. Korea may have announced they possess nuclear weapons (which the US has suspected for quite some time). We do not know if they would actually work (no testing has been identified) or what size they are (probably wouldn't fit on one of their guided missiles). And they know we still have a large number of nuclear warheads that could cause the end of their system if they actually used a nuclear weapon against us. So, I think this announcement is no big deal in the large scheme of international politics. N. Korea remains decades behind the rest of the world with a bankrupt political system and will remain so as long as we ignore them.

Sick of people believing what they hear on TV

[JavaLord]

Bush had to appear on national TV in June/July of 2003 to explain to the nation that we did not invade Iraq because of 9/11. Why? Because polls showed that almost 70% of the US population believed that to be the reason

*sigh*

You have the poll wrong, this poll was talked about in the media at length. The Poll was about an Saddam-September 11th link. The media would basically run stories like this one which includes this text "Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved" most of the stories talked about how the American public has been "mislead".

The actual poll however asked the question How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely?

32 Percent of the people said it was very likely
37 percent said it was somewhat likely.

Somehow though, CBS turned this into "nearly 70 percent of the respondents believed the iraqi leader was probably personally involved". Maybe it's just me but the words probably and somewhat have different meanings to me. Also what does "personally involved" mean? Was Saddam personally involved if one of the September 11 hijackers trained at a terrorist camp in Iraq for sometime? Or does personally involved mean that Saddam was sending them money? Or does it mean Osama called Saddam and the two watched September 11th unfold on CNN from a remote cave somewhere? Ok, I'm being a little silly but I think you get my point.

Sometimes the questions in these polls aren't very clear and can mean different things to different people. Yet the media picks them up and spins them to run the stories they want to run to influence YOU and it works.

Iraq was a threat to the US.

[JavaLord]

Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA

US intellegence agents, and Russian Intellgence agents, and Vladimir Putin all disagree with you and think that Saddam's regime was preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.

Now, do we have to wait for more American civilians to die (ala 9/11) before you are willing to let our president take action?

The anti-US propaganda surrounding this war has been disgusting.

Re:Iraq was a threat to the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, do we have to wait for more American civilians to die (ala 9/11) before you are willing to let our president take action?

If "taking action" means mass murder, absolutely. I am not willing to sacrifice 17 thousand civillians abroad to potentially save 6 thousand here.

The anti-US propaganda surrounding this war has been disgusting.

I love my country, I just think it's being badly led. I do not agree with the actions of the administration, and it's important that the world knows that lest they think we are all a bunch of raving fascists. You CAN be pro-US and anti-Bush. In fact, I would argue that one implies the other.

Re:Iraq was a threat to the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny? We've got some sarcastic mods here today :)

Re:Iraq was a threat to the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny? We've got some sarcastic mods here today :)

They operate straight from the communist textbook. Amazing.

Re:Iraq was a threat to the US.

[N3wsByt3]

Would that be the same 'US intellegence' that said there were WMD in Iraq?

Re:Reason for Iraq war to rest of world was not WM

[oliverthered]

That's not what I saw on TV?

the UNSC came up only very late in the 'how the fuck are we going to get away with this' argument.

What was funny is that the US and to some extent the UK didn't believe that Sadam had disposed of the WMD's and were banking on their belief as a reason for war, only to look a laughing stock when they found out that Sadam had disposed of them and pulling plan B 'UNSC resolution 678' out of the bag.

Time to put the tinfoil hat away lads, they know nothing.

Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does Microsoft have to do with any of this? Your first sentence makes you a damned troll.

Feed the troll - Clue-by-four

[Anonymous Coward]

You all got so owned.

He critiqued spelling and then spelled something wrong.

He talked(wrote, meh, whatever) in a circle.

He stated a clearly unpopular sentiment here on /. I mean, how could the US government possibly do anything correctly.

He gave it away with the "my two-cents."

The only thing he didn't do is post with some malformed, /. psuedo html so every word after Afghanistan was in italics. I'm sure that would have driven you insane. But it might've clued you in.

---
Never underestimate the the power of stupid people in large groups, i.e. slashsheep.

Re:Slashdot - bastion of Anti-American rhetoric?

[kilfarsnar]

Thanks! I appreciate the recognition. Got mod points? ;-)

Re:Killing flies with a flyswatter- better long-te

[ShieldW0lf]

In any event, I wish that idealists would please give up their pipe dreams of world peace through diplomatic means only. It won't happen. As long as there will be violence in our society (bar fights, spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime), there will be idiots in power that must be stopped with the use of force.

So you do think they should have built the nukes then?

the ONLY valid fact is this

[Anonymous Coward]

Jewish people were specifically targeted by Hitler. Had it been honkeys, spicks, niggers, kikes, greasers, nerds, or just about anyone else with the exception of homosexuals then we wouldn't care.

Of course you disagree with me... observation is funny in how people who want to believe something and with no principles will subsequently filter and willfully misinterpret the observed facts.

Ironically, all my nasty racial words above used as sarcasm will be misinterpreted as well. There are a lot of people who are labled as racist that actively help out with race relations. Then there are the self-loathing hypocrits who simply do not really care about the results of their actions. They merely want to put on a show in order to appear as "tolerant." Sad that such a great concept as tolerance has been bastardized by the self-loathing.

I love that episode of The Simpson's where after watching Apu's play with his children, Lisa comments, "I loved how all the actors were minorities" and Bart comments, "Gee, I didn't notice."

Foreign aid to North Korea vs Israel ?

[totierne]

There is all this talk of foreign aid to North Korea? South Korea has been trying to help with economics based initiatives.

US gives $1 billion to Israel each year mostly military stuff.

I just wanted to call bull shit on the size of North Koreas foreign aid.

Just another leftie [except when boxing]

intellectuals

[Anonymous Coward]

well if you define "intellectual" as: Arrogant trolls who refuse to apply their own critical thoughts and instead just remix the groupthink that they were told to conform to then yes, there are MANY intellectuals.

There are a lot of foolish people who talk smart but are in the end just talking monkeys.

nothing is wrong with Pacifism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you confuse pacifism with something else entirely. "A warrior chooses pacifism, others have it forced upon them"

"Big Brother" fear was very much the idea behind the government our founding fathers created. Indeed to suggest otherwise is either wilfully ignorant or shows a heretical refusal to adopt integrity and honor in your dealings with others. Interestingly, those who are of "the opposing party" of the current administration, regardless of which party that is, will always say they are against Big Brother. Big Brother is obviously not bad to you, but rather THIS particular Big Brother. So much integrity I am almost choking on it.

For the record, I do share your frustration... but I see you as the same extremist but with your little hat turned the opposite direction of those you hate.

Circular Logic

[thelizman]

North Korea has been rattling sabres since before ICBMs existed. The need for ABMD was touted in the 1980's before North Korea even admitted to researching nukes.

Get even the slightest clue before making moronic statements to justify your 'blame America first' attitude.

Re:Circular Logic

[Cackmobile]

no blame the current administration. and my comment said the US is rattling sabres.

NK nukes

[Lost Phoenician]

I for one welcome our new Korean Overlords?

Physician, heal thyself

[ianscot]

The charge of extremism is maybe not one you want to be tossing around lightly. Those walls around you are made of glass, and the pin is clearly not in your grenade.

I've voted across party lines for my entire life, based on which candidate I thought was the most responsible potential leader. I voted for W. Bush's dad. In this last election, I voted for a Republican for my state Senate and a Green for Secretary of State and a Dem for President. If your ideology requires that you marginalize me and this poster as "pinkos," the problem isn't with us.

You're every bit the craven, blinded partisan that the butt-kissing cronies of Brezhnev's Kremlin were. (And your boy W. has displayed every bit the same proccupation with loyalty over truth as Leonid's old inner circle, but that's another story.)

When the facts are not in dispute...

[Engineer-Poet]

... any source will do. Even Newsmax. (It just happened to come up first on a Google search.)

I suppose that you would accept the same list if it had appeared on a different source? ;-)

You are really being silly

[Engineer-Poet]

I don't know whether you are serious or trolling, or whether to laugh or cry.

It is not in China's interest to see a neighboring country possess nuclear weapons.

Is that so? Given that, you should be able to explain to me why North Korea was able to build at least two nuclear reactors (suitable for small-scale weapons production) while it was dependent upon aid from and trade through China for its very existence. Specifically, does China have no ability to promote and defend its interests (explain away the occupation of Tibet and threats to invade Taiwan... if you can) or does it have greater interests in a "separate" nation harassing S. Korea and Japan, and through them the US?

More generally, no country would ever like to see any other political force to possess nuclear weaposn, no matter how strong the alliance between the country and the political force would be.

Oh, that's why Libya had Chinese warhead designs (probably through Pakistan); China didn't want anyone else having nuclear warheads.