North Korea

PrinceBimz · March 3, 2003, 17:57

Why do they fear a US attack? The US have made absolutely no indications or anything about attacking NK. I think NK is using this as an excuse to build up their nuclear weapons. For what reason would US attack NK for anyway? President BUSH specifically told them US is not going to attack them. Seems like to me with NK's lame threats of claiming the world will suffer a horrifying nuclear disaster (as they say) is going far down the wrong road. Oh but the US are the bad guys...WHATEVER.

Arrian · March 3, 2003, 18:06

You might be surprised at how many people (especially posters here on 'poly) would agree with your last sentence, minus the WHATEVER.

The stock answer would be to bring up the "Axis of Evil" speech, and then point to Iraq (1st part of the "Axis") and the drive to war there. Add in NK's paranoia and general US evilness, and voila!

There was a rather long NK thread around, but maybe it fell off the first couple of pages...

-Arrian

Q Classic · March 3, 2003, 18:08

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=77563

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 22:43

I dunno. What had Grenada ever done to the US?

Boris Godunov · March 3, 2003, 22:45

2 threads a day in the OT max.

But this guy just starts threads and then abandons them and creates new ones.

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 22:52

Why do they fear an Iraqi attack? Iraq has made absolutely no indications or anything about attacking the US. I think the US is using this as an excuse to build up its military. For what reason would Iraq attack the US for anyway? Seems like to me with US' lame claims that the world will suffer a horrifying nuclear disaster (as they say) is going far down the wrong road. Oh but Iraq is the bad guy...WHATEVER.

DinoDoc · March 3, 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What had Grenada ever done to the US?

Threaten the safety of medical students?

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Threaten the safety of medical students?

With what, large bananas?

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 22:59

PrinceBimz :

From your previous posts in the OT, there is something you don't seem to know, and that everyone should teach you : sometimes politicians LIE. They don't tell the truth. THey don't tell what they mean. They distort their speech to mislead their listeners. They lie

Bush is confronted to a potential nuclear rabid dog. If he can make this rabid dog harmless with a war, he won't hesitate (like if the chickenhawks hesitate to go to war these days

). Until then, he tries to appease the dog to avoid being bitten. This includes a "calm down, I won't harm you" kind of speech.

Of course NK is fearing an attack : if it is proven they are not a complete threat yet, they'll be attacked immediately, to avoid them fulfilling their nuclear ambition.

I can't understand you're taking anything Bush says as the truth. Bush lies shamelessly, like almost all politicians. Do not trust him, and do not trust any of his competitors.

DinoDoc · March 3, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
With what, large bananas?

Strangely enough, there's a rumour that people in third world countries might have guns.

PLATO · March 3, 2003, 23:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I dunno. What had Grenada ever done to the US?

Took US hostages at the university?

PLATO · March 3, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
PrinceBimz :

From your previous posts in the OT, there is something you don't seem to know, and that everyone should teach you : sometimes politicians LIE. They don't tell the truth. THey don't tell what they mean. They distort their speech to mislead their listeners. They lie

Bush is confronted to a potential nuclear rabid dog. If he can make this rabid dog harmless with a war, he won't hesitate (like if the chickenhawks hesitate to go to war these days

). Until then, he tries to appease the dog to avoid being bitten. This includes a "calm down, I won't harm you" kind of speech.

Of course NK is fearing an attack : if it is proven they are not a complete threat yet, they'll be attacked immediately, to avoid them fulfilling their nuclear ambition.

I can't understand you're taking anything Bush says as the truth. Bush lies shamelessly, like almost all politicians. Do not trust him, and do not trust any of his competitors.

Spiffor, while I agree with your lesson to PrinceBimz that politicians do lie, much of what else you mention is not corraberated by the facts.

US policy is to exhaust diplomatic routes until they are exhausted (you may also read this as "until they become fruitless"). After 12 years and 17 UN resolutions to date, Iraq has not complied with theinternational will. The crisis in North Korea is truly in its infancy. The IAEA is working hard to try to develop a diplomatic way to bring North Korea into compliance. The US is trying hard with offers to provide essential needs in exchange for compliance with international treaty. South Korea is working hard. No one on our side of this crisis is calling for any military option now or in the future. As we have seen by the Iraqi process, diplomacy can take years to determine if it has been sucessful or not. Once it has not been, then is when other options are explored.

You are not being fair to the US government

Q Classic · March 3, 2003, 23:23

actually, that's not quite correct. nobody in the arab world is exactly hankering for a war with iraq.

and nobody in east asia wants a war in skorea, least of all the skoreans.

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 23:30

I agree I am not fair to the US government, because I tend to exaggerate its hawkishness.
However, I do think the US, like Japan and possibly China, is considering a second Korea war as one of the options (even though these considerations don't make it to the media, unlike the war in Iraq).

I still believe the few things that have been done during 12 years in Iraq equate to nothing : the international comunity let the situation rot, rather than looked for solutions.
Now that Bush II has put Iraq on the table again, it is time to look for a solution. The first suggestion ever of the Bushies was to go to war, to "finish the job".

War IMHO, goes in the general Weltanschauung of the Hawks leading the US, and in general serves the interests of the administration and its clients. Looking for diplomatic solutions doesn't enter in the new doctrine of the White House, which is basically to show everyone who's the boss (hence the hugely increased military budget).

However, since NK is threathening, unlike Iraq, Bush et al. will hesitate to go to war. They'll actively look for a diplomatic solution if it is proven NK can nuke LA. If NK isn't proven threatening, you can be sure the US won't take any chances, exactly like Japan is planning to do, and like China might be considering.

PLATO · March 3, 2003, 23:31

Quote:

nobody in the arab world is exactly hankering for a war with iraq.

No one is "hankering" for war anywhere. The Arab states of Baharain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar openly support the goal of Saddam being dismissed as leader of Iraq. Of course we all wish it would occur without war. These countries will openly support US action if it comes. Saudi Arabia and Jordon both have economic reasons to want Saddam go. They will covertly support US action (please note: Jordon has agreed to let US aircraft land at Jordainian fields in the event they experience an emergency and Saudi has now given permission to use the command facilities at Prince Sultan airbase for direction of the air war). Syria has no love of Saddam but wishes only for an anti-Israeli ally. Egypt will support a new Iraqi regime with vigor and now give Saddam a cold shoulder. But perhaps you were speaking of Libya and another great world leader: Qaddafi.

Q Classic · March 3, 2003, 23:40

oh, please. all of them want to see saddam go; after all, who doesn't? (well, we also probably all hope he doesn't become satan's gay lover...)

but it also appears as if most of the nations in that reason barely support the us; sure, these countries will support the us when the time comes, but they don't seem at all happy about it.

indeed, most of them are most wary of the aftermath of the event, something which the bush administration has not been too clear on. iran doesn't want the sunni minority (currently in power) to be wiped out by bitter shiites in the aftermath; the others don't want a kurdistan; the kurds want their own state; the iraqi exiles are divided on how to approach the reconstruction; the saudis and the other arabs don't want a fertile recruiting ground for al-qaeda and other terrorist groups.

bush is going to go to war, there's no doubt about that. noone in the arab world is excited at the prospect, and no doubt all of them want some idea of what's going to happen after the regime changes.

as for speaking of libya, no, i wasn't. as far as i know, he doesn't give a damn about what happens to iraq, so long as he stays in power and can use it as propaganda against the "great american satan".

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Took US hostages at the university?

Assuming that was a real incident and not manufactured.

So the US invaded another country and forced a regime change for that, breaking international law in the process?

Seems to be just an excuse to me.

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I do think the US, like Japan and possibly China, is considering a second Korea war as one of the options (even though these considerations don't make it to the media, unlike the war in Iraq).

That is implausible.

The only place the US can build up is RoK, who will not let the US do such a thing. Besides, DPRK will likely to attack if US attempts any buildup.

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Assuming that was a real incident and not manufactured.

So the US invaded another country and forced a regime change for that, breaking international law in the process?

Seems to be just an excuse to me.

No, it was a capital offense threatening the security of the US and world stability.

DinoDoc · March 3, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Assuming that was a real incident and not manufactured.

What proof do you have that we faked it? You aren't one of those people that believes that the moon landing was faked too are you?

Spiffor · March 3, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That is implausible.

The only place the US can build up is RoK, who will not let the US do such a thing. Besides, DPRK will likely to attack if US attempts any buildup.

OKey, granted you're right. War against NK seems unplausible now. However, how would the Japanese plan their attack on NK ?

Urban Ranger · March 3, 2003, 23:53

If the Japanese dude was not bluffing, e.g. gaining political capital, the only thing they can do is to conduct a raid to destroy certain nuclear facilities. Like what Israel did to Iraq.

Q Classic · March 3, 2003, 23:59

the japanese doesn't have a large enough navy to mount an amphibious invasion of nkorea.

also, it's likely that any attack by japan on nkorea would polarize the region--nobody wants to see an aggressive japan, so skorea might well break of all ties with japan in that case, perhaps even go so far as to defend nkorea in a limited manner.

the us would be relegated to a peacekeeping role, trying to keep the japanese and the koreans from killing each other.

as for china... it might just well defend nkorea as well against japanese aggression. lotta bitter history in that part of the world.

DanS · March 4, 2003, 00:03

so skorea might well break of all ties with japan in that case, perhaps even go so far as to defend nkorea in a limited manner

That's quite unlikely.

Q Classic · March 4, 2003, 00:13

i wouldn't say that. japan and skorea might be buddy-buddy, but it's between governments and started only as an alliance of convenience.

you'd be hard pressed to find a korean who would favor japan over north korea.

perhaps not defend nkorea, you might be right. but i wouldn't be surprised if skorea and japan ended up sharply split in such an event.

PLATO · March 4, 2003, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i wouldn't say that. japan and skorea might be buddy-buddy, but it's between governments and started only as an alliance of convenience.

you'd be hard pressed to find a korean who would favor japan over north korea.

perhaps not defend nkorea, you might be right. but i wouldn't be surprised if skorea and japan ended up sharply split in such an event.

I completely don't understand your logic. ROK would not defend DPRK from anything. Depending on the circumstances, ROK could make protest but that would about be it. Far to many economic reasons for Japan and ROK to get along and almost none for ROK and DPRK to get along.