1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

North Korea begging to have the s*** bombed out of them.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by DrewP, Dec 27, 2002.

  1. DrewP

    DrewP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,635
    Likes Received:
    26
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/27/nkorea.dmz/index.html

    SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- The North Korean army has brought light machine guns into the Demilitarized Zone, the United Nations Command on the Korean Peninsula said Friday -- a violation of agreements signed in 1953 at the end of the Korean War.

    A U.N.C. Military Armistice Commission investigation revealed that the North Koreans had brought into the DMZ automatic weapons, the kind that can be operated by crews.

    They were observed transporting, setting up and manning Type-73 light machine guns on six days between December 13 and December 20.

    North Korea has been observed breaching the Demilitarized Zone from time to time over the years but this incident comes at a particularly sensitive time diplomatically.

    The South Korean army spotted the weapons while providing security for workers building the reconnection of the Gyeongui railroad and adjacent highway between the two Koreas.

    The South Koreans reported that their northern counterparts set up the weapons from 100 to 400 meters north of the line and removed them at the end of each day.

    U.N.C. said that it sent a message December 23 to North Korea requesting a meeting on the issue, to be held December 26, but the North Koreans would not accept the message.

    The United Nations command was set up after the June, 1950, North Korean invasion of the South to oversee troops from U.N. member nations that had volunteered to defend South Korea. Sixteen nations -- including the United States -- joined in the fight to repel the North.

    The Demilitarized Zone extends 2,000 meters from each side of the Military Demarcation Line, as agreed to in an armistice to the Korean War signed July 27, 1953.

    According to U.S. and South Korean officials, two-thirds of North Korea's 1.1-million-member military are currently deployed close to the border with South Korea.

    South Korea has a 650,000-member military, assisted by 37,000 U.S. troops. Washington has repeatedly ignored demands by the North that it withdraw its forces from the South.

    In his January State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush called North Korea part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and Iran.

    The U.N.C. report came on the same day that Pyongyang ordered International Atomic Energy Agency monitors to leave the country and began to restart dormant energy plants that the United States says could easily make nuclear weapons.

    It also told the IAEA that it will resume operations at its plant for reprocessing spent fuel rods -- a facility capable of making weapons-grade plutonium.

    In response, the IAEA said the inspectors were still needed and asked North Korea to reconsider.

    An official Chinese newspaper blasted the United States over its stance regarding North Korea's nuclear program.

    "This is a hawkish and dangerous warning," the English-language publication said. "It will poison the warming relations between the two sides of the Korean Peninsula."

    The editorial went on to say the United States was irritated at having to shift its focus toward North Korea while it planned a war in Iraq.


    DEMILITARIZED ZONE
    The demarcation line between North and South Korea is known as the 38th parallel.

    The line is 2.5 miles wide and 151 miles long.

    Nearly 2 million troops guard the line on both sides.

    The zone was agreed to in an armistice to the Korean War signed July 27, 1953.


    First the nuclear thing, now this. Is North Korea being wildly foolish, or are they putting into motion a plan for war? Either way, this is not good....
     
  2. t4651965

    t4651965 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    North Korea is betting that the U.S. won't attempt to fight on two fronts. They are messing with the wrong President.

    Clinton is not in charge anymore, and this fact has confused the world. We are no longer the weak nation projected by the Clinton Administration, and North Korea's gamble will not pay off.

    Peace is achieved through perceived strength. War is invited through perceived weakness.
     
  3. Htownhero

    Htownhero Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    2,570
    Likes Received:
    32


    Actually this would be three fronts now right? Pardon me if I don't share your enthusiasm at this prospect

    The world doesn't percieve us as strong? Thats funny, I thought we were known throughout the world as the lone superpower. Guess they don't make superpowers the way they used to. Thats ok, we'll just go to war with Korea, Afghanastan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China....hell, lets just go to war with everyone. That'll show the world how strong we are. After everyone is dead or scared we'll rule.
     
  4. t4651965

    t4651965 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a big difference between having military hardware and manpower, and being willing to use it.

    Clinton sent a message to Bin Ladin that he could attack us, and we would not retaliate in any meaningful way. Now, we have a commander-in-chief that will protect our national interests.
     
  5. Nomar

    Nomar Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2000
    Messages:
    4,429
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have a better idea.

    Instead, I suggest destroying all weapons, nuclear or otherwise. We should give the Atlantic Fleet to Iraq, and the Pacific Fleet to North Korea. All other naval forces should be given to Cuba. The U.S. Air Force should be bequethed to China. The entire U.S. Army should be retired from service. Then, we should retract our borders in all directions by 300 miles. The states of Colorado and Nebraska should be given to a newly created National American Indian Empire. If any nation attempts to attack us, instead of resisting we should commit mass suicide to prevent any unecessary bloodshed.
     
  6. JohnnyBlaze

    JohnnyBlaze Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2000
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    0
    Move over Iraq, North Korea wants the spotlight
    By Bradley K Martin

    A quarter-century ago, Dear Leader Kim Jong-il was sharing absolute power in North Korea with his father, Great Leader Kim Il-sung. Their principal American-handler was Kim Yong-nam, a bespectacled functionary with Groucho Marx eyebrows - but no one-liners and no cigar. When I met him in 1979 his specialty was earnest, three-hour monologues over lunch.

    And now? Kim Il-sung died in 1994, but otherwise at the top it's business as usual. Kim Jong-il is the Great Leader, flexing the dynasty's still enormous muscle. Kim Yong-nam acts as head of state.

    In the United States, four presidents have come and gone, along with their principal North Korea-watchers.

    The discontinuity in Washington may help to explain what otherwise would be a mystery: how the current US team imagines it can focus on invading Iraq while consigning to a back burner North Korea's revived threats to make trouble big time.

    Consider the response recently when Pyongyang announced it was reactivating the Yongbyon nuclear power plant - a reactor that produces weapons- grade plutonium, and that the United States prepared to bomb in 1994 before the North Koreans agreed to shut it down. Bush administration officials were loath to attend to the challenge before dealing with Iraq. "One rogue state crisis at a time," a senior administration official was reported to have said.

    But Pyongyang's history and circumstances dictate that it cannot and will not permit the United States to wait and deal with North Korea at a more opportune time when other foes have been vanquished and the field is clear.

    Just put yourself in Kim Jong-il's place. You are a dictator whose top priority - far outranking such mundane concerns as feeding your people - is preserving your regime. Over decades you have fortified your country, hardening sensitive installations inside tunnels and bunkers.

    Now US news reports tell you that your enemy is preparing more sophisticated weapons, and contemplates practicing with them on Saddam Hussein in Iraq. These include "smart" bunker-busters, which can penetrate to the correct underground level before detonating, and thermobaric bombs whose blast can destroy the germs in biological weapons.

    You note that President George W Bush has termed Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil". You don't need to be a tea-leaf reader to know that, once Iraq is out of the way, your time will be short.

    Now, still imagining that you are Kim Jong-il, do you graciously wait in the anteroom and avoid interrupting while the Pentagon targets Iraq? Or do you see it as essential to your survival to take swift advantage of Washington's Middle Eastern preoccupation?

    The question answers itself. Washington's refusal to acknowledge urgency guarantees that Kim Jong-il will follow his latest provocation with another provocation, and yet another, each one more threatening, until he has gained Bush's full attention.

    The stage for the coming confrontation was set more than a decade ago, after the collapse of Soviet communism. Officials of the George Bush I and Bill Clinton administrations hoped to play a waiting game. They figured North Korea would collapse, perhaps to be absorbed into South Korea in the pattern of East and West Germany. Meanwhile they would rely on a balancing act: neither speeding things up through military intervention nor providing to the regime the means to prolong its existence.

    Pyongyang caught on and made clear that studied neglect was not acceptable. Kim prepared his people for a war that might break out at any moment. That got Washington's attention.

    War was averted in 1994 with a deal that Pyongyang believed would lead to diplomatic relations. Washington didn't follow through on that part of the deal, though. Thus Pyongyang issued periodic reminders of its capacity for hurting the United States and its allies, reminders such as its 1998 launch of a rocket over Japan.

    Now Kim Jong-il can see clearly that he is now in a do-or-die situation.

    The North Korean ruler has little hope unless he can pose to Bush a stark choice: attend to Pyongyang's demands or sign up to fight a far wider war. Kim can indeed do that. He can threaten to turn what the Pentagon now plans as a two-front war against al-Qaeda and Iraq into a three-front war - or a four-front war if Iran, whose nuclear-weapons progress was featured in satellite photos last week, gets involved. As a condemned man, Kim may feel he has little to lose from actual warfare.

    North Korea's war plans always have contemplated fighting Uncle Sam only when he has one hand tied behind him. "It would be rather difficult for us to fight all alone against American imperialism," Kim Il-sung acknowledged in 1955. However, "under conditions where they must disperse their forces on a global scale, it would be comparatively easy for us to defeat them".

    Kim Jong-il has the men and the weapons to do horrific damage to South Korea, where 37,000 US troops are stationed, and probably to Japan as well. In threatening, he would not be bluffing, any more than Bush is bluffing Saddam Hussein.

    What does Kim Jong-il want from the United States?

    His minions have made clear that Pyongyang demands a US guarantee of the regime's security. Why not give such a guarantee if it would lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula?

    The devil is in the details. In exchange for a security guarantee, Bush and his advisors would want to obliterate all traces of Pyongyang's capability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are Pyongyang's final card. There is little in the history of the relationship to suggest that Kim would trust Washington sufficiently to give them up.

    Considering the likelihood that talks would prove fruitless - and considering the evident lack of enthusiasm in Washington for trying to force regime change in North Korea right now, ahead of Iraq - what alternatives exist for Washington?

    One is to recognize that the Cold War is not yet over, as long as Kim Jong-il's regime exists, and to re-emphasize the Cold War policy of containment - so successful since the 1953 armistice in preventing a second outbreak of war in Korea.

    The Bush administration will resist that alternative. Redoubling military, diplomatic and economic efforts to contain Kim Jong-il when he desperately seeks to avoid containment would imply giving North Korea an enormous quantity of attention. In those circumstances it would be difficult to concentrate with sufficient single-mindedness on invading Iraq.

    But there may be no choice. Picking off evildoers one at a time may prove to be a task that is simply beyond Washington's present capability.
     
  7. SirCharlesFan

    SirCharlesFan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 1999
    Messages:
    6,028
    Likes Received:
    143
    LOL! This is a great post!
     
  8. Pole

    Pole Houston Rockets--Tilman Fertitta's latest mess.

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    8,568
    Likes Received:
    2,735
    You're the last person I ever expected a "post of the year" contender from.

    As anti war stances go, I'd have to say that your idea is the first that actually suggests a solution....rather than just complain about a problem.
     
  9. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    No oil; no war with N. Korea. Nukes are just an excuse.

    It does seem that N. Korea is enjoying their fame from the whole stupid "Axis of Evil" thing.
     
  10. Cohen

    Cohen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    One person's 'post of the year' is another's 'waste of time'.
     
  11. Timing

    Timing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    It certainly is...
     
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,848
    Likes Received:
    20,634
    Bush Jr Admin has a great love of war and an appalling lack of diplomacy. A war with North Korea now appears to be a more solid lock than a war with Iraq.

    Does anybody else see the irony of an actual emerging threat that we will likely take care of in our own time?

    IMO, North Korea should be very careful about what they ask for?
     
  13. rocks_fan

    rocks_fan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,842
    Likes Received:
    412
    Ok hold on please clarify real quick. You say there won't be a war because there's no oil involved. Then you say that nukes are just an excuse. Excuse for what? Either you're saying that the nukes are an excuse NOT to go to war, which contradicts most current evidence (albeit just talk right now) or you're saying the nukes are an excuse TO go to war, in which case you're contradicting yourself. Which (if either) are you implying?
     
  14. Nomar

    Nomar Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2000
    Messages:
    4,429
    Likes Received:
    2
    Are you serious?

    I don't have an anti-war stance. I was being sarcastic.

    I actually advocate an immediate invasion of North Korea.

    But carry on...
     
  15. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,172
    Likes Received:
    5,625
    <A HREF="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021228-2113768.htm">U.S. to take N. Korea before U.N.</A>

    <i> <b> Bush administration officials have decided to go to the United Nations to seek punishment against North Korea for violating treaties by moving to restart the production of nuclear weapons.
    </b>

    U.S. officials say the administration will urge the International Atomic Energy Agency to go before the U.N. Security Council next month to report the violations.
    The IAEA's board of governors is scheduled to meet in Vienna, Austria, on Jan. 6 to discuss a response to North Korea's recent resumption of its nuclear program. The United States will ask the body to condemn North Korea's violations and demand that some type of economic sanctions be imposed upon Pyongyang, U.S. officials said.
    Senior policy-makers conducted what is termed a "principals meeting" yesterday at the White House, in which Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council representatives discussed how to respond to the crisis in North Korea. A senior U.S. official confirmed the meeting and the topic but declined to provide specific details.<b>
    However, other sources said President Bush will put the military option aside and try to resolve the crisis diplomatically through the United Nations and other channels.</b>
    North Korea this week removed IAEA monitoring equipment at its Yongbyon nuclear facility, where sufficient spent nuclear fuel exists to quickly produce up to five plutonium weapons. Yesterday, the communist regime ordered out the last remaining IAEA inspectors monitoring the program.
    The regime has admitted to breaking a 1994 agreement with the United States, in which Pyongyang agreed to freeze its nuclear-weapons program. North Korea recently announced that it is pursuing a program to produce weapons made of enriched uranium.
    The Bush administration has stayed silent on exactly how it plans to confront North Korea. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has told Pyongyang that the United States has sufficient military forces to fight two wars simultaneously, against both North Korea and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
    When Mr. Bush turns to the United Nations, it will mark the second time he has asked the Security Council to get tough with an "axis of evil" state. In September, Mr. Bush went before the U.N. General Assembly to demand that it force Iraq to comply with the body's own cease-fire resolutions on disarmament. The Security Council eventually approved a resolution authorizing the ongoing weapons inspections in Iraq.
    Mr. Bush has labeled Iraq, North Korea and Iran as forming an "axis of evil."
    Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Non-Proliferation Education Center in Washington, said the United States must stick by its no-bargaining policy with Pyongyang.
    "The whole world is watching," said Mr. Sokolski, whose group for years has been in the forefront of warning about North Korea's nuclear intentions. "If we blink with regard to North Korea's nuclear violations, it will be a green light for proliferators around the world."
    He said the Security Council "can at least clarify what is intolerable behavior."
    "Even if it imposes weak sanctions, it will accomplish this much. This process also has the advantage of forcing [council members] China and Russia on the record. They can't be great nations and walk away from the demand they at least support some punishment for North Korea's violations," he said.
    On Monday, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker was asked by reporters whether the United States would seek U.N. action against North Korea.
    "That remains to be seen as we watch this over coming days and continue to be in touch with friends and allies," Mr. Reeker said. "That includes Security Council members. Obviously, this is an issue that will be of interest to the United Nations, because North Korea is in violation of many of its international commitments."
    He said the North is in violation of four treaties and agreements: the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the North-South Agreement on Denuclearization; and the 1994 Agreed Framework hammered out by the Clinton administration.
    The White House position, repeated yesterday, is that it will not negotiate with North Korea while it stands in flagrant violation of the 1994 Framework Agreement.
    Mr. Reeker said on Monday, "We will not give in to blackmail. The international community will not enter into dialogue in response to threats or broken commitments, and we're not going to bargain or offer inducements for North Korea to live up to the treaties and agreements that it has signed."
    Analysts say the reclusive communist regime, whose motives are often difficult to read, probably decided to engage in diplomatic brinkmanship to elicit more offers of economic aid from Japan, South Korea and the United States.
    The North's communist-run economy is in shambles. It diverts large resources to maintain a massive military of 1.7 million soldiers, more than half of whom are poised near the border of South Korea.
    Under the Agreed Framework, the North was supposed to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for shipments of fuel oil and construction of two light-water nuclear-power plants.
    </i>
     
  16. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    The whole weapons of mass destruction thing is just an excuse to do a combination of these three or more goals: 1) grab oil and do oil deals with the Bush II contributors, 2) please the friends of Sharon in the Bush II cabinet, 3) "create a positive issue environment" so they can decrease taxes on their contributors, funnel government money to their defense industry contributors and accomplish other domestic goals 4) complete the heart warming story of a boy who completes his father's work or avenges his daddy.

    Korea has no oil; hence no invasion and occupation like you'll have in Iraq. Talking about Korea's nukes has the advantage of playing to the whole weapons of mass destruction excuse to seize oil. etc. Since Korea is not Muslim it also helps defuse the message that the Mulsim world sees that Bush II is anti-Muslim.
     
  17. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    Ok, at this point glynch is just pulling your chain. In trying to look at the goings on re: Iraq someone might include this list as contributing factors in Bush's general outlook on the Iraq question. However, to wholesale believe in some conspiracy is just idiotic. Have you examined ANY of the statements coming out of N Korea? Do you realize we ALREADY have troops there to guard against N Korean aggression? Do you realize even the Clinton administration was considering military intervention in '94 when the original agreements were made?

    Glynch I hope it is the case that you are pulling chains, otherwise you are simply stupid.

    He can't possibly be this stupid or disconnected.
     
  18. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,072
    Likes Received:
    3,601
    Hayes, as you say, the motivations I listed are to be considered wrt to Iraq.

    N. Korea was surprisingly added to the pot in the "axis of evil" speech. The author of the "axis of evil" phrase was fired due in large part to the uproar the speech created. BTW nothing special was happening in N. Korea at that time. It was its typical screwed up self when Bush II decided to make news over it. In fact the only news was that relations were getting better with S. Korea. S. Korea was not happy with the axis of evil thing.

    Though it might be wrong, it is not some vast conspiracy to wonder why the N. Korea thing was all of a sudden added to speech. This was when Iraq and the Middle East were the main issue. To make the whole thing look less anti-Muslim is a plausible explanation.

    You can label any political opinion you dislike as a "conspiracy" or "stupid". I'm not sure, however, it advances your argument much.

    If your positions are so obviously the only correct ones and according to you only "stupid" people could possibly disagree, why do you find a near majority of Americans and a clear majority in the rest of the world oppose your militaristic approach to foreign policy?
     
  19. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13
    I don't think they would want the land back. Look what we did to it.

    http://www.dickshovel.com/AIMIntro.html
     
  20. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,507
    Likes Received:
    181
    A near majority of Americans would not advance the opinions you do. That is flat out false. A near majority might not be convinced that the evidence is as clear as Bush says, but they are no where NEAR your opinions. And to assert that they subscribe to your conspiracy theories is a joke. In addition, if I recall correctly, the last poll you posted had more than 50% of Americans supporting a ground war in Iraq, correct? Maybe you can explain how that is consistent with your views?

    Not to mention the facts show that your supposed 'majority' of other countries does not exist.

    As for why N Korea was added to the Axis-of-Evil, there is a simple explanation. ANY list of potentially dangerous 'rogue states' would HAVE to include N Korea. N Korea being considered a 'rogue state' or a danger to stability in East Asia is NOT new. As I stated before the same concerns about their proliferation were present when Clinton made the original deals with N Korea in 1994. They violated the NPT. They have shipped ballistic missle and possibly nuclear technology to other states. They have consistently been considered a risk both to S Korea and Japan (having kidnapped Japanese nationals, launched ballistic missles into Japanese territory, and engaged the Japanese Navy with submarines). These are not disputable opinions! THESE ARE FACTS. You counter that with unverifiable inuendo and conspiracy theory. When an objective observer weighs your opinions against the facts, the proper conclusion should be obvious.
     
    #20 HayesStreet, Dec 29, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2002

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now