The Shrine

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944560/

My feelings, who cares. If they feel safer with them as defensive deterents then they are in the same situation then if they didnt have them. I do not think we would have attacked and i do not think we will attack, so everything is still the same with or withouts nukes. If, for some god knows why reason, they use them for the offensive (which i dont think they will do) then the whole world will be on their case and not just the US.

Bush should care, doesn't he go to war against hostile countries who allegedly build Weapons of Mass Destruction? Also, doesn't he consider communists to be the root of all evil which will lead to the downfall of civilization? Keeping this is mind, I am surprised Bush hasn't declared war on North Korea yet; although he is a fairly stupid man, maybe he forgot about North Korea? But you can guarantee he won't forget about his powerful allies in Poland.

Add this to the recent rhetoric spewing forth from Condi on Iran and I get an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach. Rewind to news from March 2003, you know what I mean.

I am all for regime change in NK (Kim-Jong Il is just as brutal a dictator as Saddam was, if not moreso), but even I realize we can't rush in there like we did with Iraq. If not for the possiblility of Seoul and Tokyo getting blown to hell, we'd still have to deal with China (though I imagine if we sold out Taiwan we could easily get them to look the other way, not that I'd actually advocate that). In this case it's better to keep tightening the noose around them through sanctions and encourage a toppling of their government through covert means. Doing any kind of preemptive military action at this point is just going to piss everyone off and result in a lot more lives being lost than necessary.

Manshoon wrote:but even I realize we can't rush in there like we did with Iraq.

Hell, we couldn't rush into Iraq like we did with Iraq...

I think the best way to handle this is through China. We do a lot of trade with China that they get a much better end of the deal on. If we put pressure on them by threatening to cease trade with them if they refused to put pressure on N. Korea to get rid of their nukes, I think it would be fairly effective. Moreso than just us telling them. Just a thought.

You just want to bathe in the blood of the Chinese. I'm on to you.

Where do you get that idea? I see it as a way to solve the problem without resorting to military conflict and bloodshed. There are ways to apply pressure to a government that dont involve the use of force.

M'k'n'zy wrote:I think the best way to handle this is through China. We do a lot of trade with China that they get a much better end of the deal on. If we put pressure on them by threatening to cease trade with them if they refused to put pressure on N. Korea to get rid of their nukes, I think it would be fairly effective. Moreso than just us telling them. Just a thought.

China would call our bluff. China can get away with a LOT of human rights violations, but China already has "favorite nation" status by us, so we wouldn't do shit to them. That, and the fact that they have 1+ billion people to turn into an army.

(Oh, and naming China as the 2008 Olympic location was the final nail on the Olympic Commitee's creditability. Fuck them and fuck the corporate sponsors they ride on!)

Manshoon wrote:I am all for regime change in NK (Kim-Jong Il is just as brutal a dictator as Saddam was, if not moreso), but even I realize we can't rush in there like we did with Iraq. If not for the possiblility of Seoul and Tokyo getting blown to hell, we'd still have to deal with China (though I imagine if we sold out Taiwan we could easily get them to look the other way, not that I'd actually advocate that). In this case it's better to keep tightening the noose around them through sanctions and encourage a toppling of their government through covert means. Doing any kind of preemptive military action at this point is just going to piss everyone off and result in a lot more lives being lost than necessary.

Actually, any sort of preemptive military action is going to lead to the destruction of the US, or at least the way we know it. This is how it starts. I can see it now:

1. Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions.
   Kim-Jong doesn't care, like Saddam didn't with the food sanctions.
   Bush thinks that since Saddam didn't launch his "nukes", Kim-Jong won't either. He invades North Korea.
   Bush is wrong. Unlike Saddam, who was pretending he had power that he didn't possess, Kim-Jong actually does have nukes. He can't launch them far enough for US soil, but he does push the button for Japan and China.
   The Beast Awakens.
   You do not fuck with China.
   The second rule of China: YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH CHINA!
   China blames the US for their blown up cities and declares war on US, including whatever remains of North Korea.
   China > US
   The UN argues. A few countries join in the fight against China, but most are scared of The Beast.
   The US gets dominated and its allies back down.
   Eventually, China goes back to "favorite nation" status, for fear of retailation.

China supplies North Korea with 80% of their oil. China gets pissed off and North Korea basically stops functioning.

Tortolia wrote:China supplies North Korea with 80% of their oil. China gets pissed off and North Korea basically stops functioning.

If North Korea (or Kim-Jong, rather) is about to be blown away by the US, I doubt Kim would be thinking about any long-term plans like that. Having the last laugh before dying would be more on his mind. Think of it as the invasion on Berlin and right before Hilter is about to blow his head off, he realizes that he can at least volley off a bunch of nukes before he offs himself.

You assume that

A) North Korea actually has functioning nuclear weapons currently.
Things would escalate to that point.

Color me highly skeptical on both fronts.

Tortolia wrote:A) North Korea actually has functioning nuclear weapons currently.

Yeah, and unlike Saddam, Kim-Jong says "We HAVE nukes", not "we might have nuclear capabilities". He's fired off missiles to prove that he has the launching capacity.

Tortolia wrote:B) Things would escalate to that point.

We have a highly neo-conservative administration with a Republican-backed Congress. You do the math.

There is no evidence whatsoever that he has performed actual nuclear testing. Yawn.

I'd respond to the other point, but it's not worth my time.