So what's bush going to do about North Korea now?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by madame_zora, Oct 10, 2006.

  1. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    We are living in some serious times, my friends, and at some point we will have to ask ourselves, "What has been our part?"

    From what I see, our government has no interest in personal accountability. We are the people of a shitfless leader whom we have not deposed. Although we may never be accountable to ourselves, I wonder how long it will take other nations to hold our feet to the fire for what george bush and crew has done.

    The arrogance of this regime will be visited on all of us, our children and our grandchildren both financially and in terms of world standing. The anger I feel is just what's on top- at the core of my self, what I feel most is sadness and shame that we couldn't do any better than this.

    The United States issued shrill warnings to the North Koreans, but they sounded increasingly hollow given the entanglement in Iraq. The North Koreans continually appeared to be calling the United States' bluff.

    And if the Bush administration expected the removal of Saddam Hussein to deter Kim Jong Il from forging ahead, it was in for a disappointment. The North Koreans said they needed nuclear weapons to prevent the United States from exercising the doctrine of preemption on their territory.

    "We're not like Iraq or Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. We can defend ourselves," Kim Myong Song, a North Korean guard at Mt. Kumgang, boasted to The Times last year.



    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-wrong10oct10,1,3420849.story?page=1&coll=la-news-a_section

    Please read the article, please.



    And this I say to all those "well meaning" people who still support the regime- fuck you. Fuck you all. You used illegal tactics to forfeit away our rights and egotistically claimed to hold the sole key to God and the path of righteousness- fuck you all. I'll die beside you if we end up in a world war, please just shut up and sit down. ANYBODY will do a better job.

    Oh, if you feel the need to exclaim your love for God, go to church. Our government is NOT the place to do it. You stupid motherfuckers.
     
  2. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    There's nothing much we CAN do given how thinly stretched our forces already are. Bush's cowboy politics will haunt us for decades.
     
  3. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Well seeing as how the two of you have all the accusatory weapons at your hands and as always are shooting away in your usual "I hate all Republicans" style, I am rather miffed that you cannot somehow put together some reasonable scenario for how to solve this problem.

    Since this is destined to become yet another of the ever growing list of "Let's bash George" threads, I am sure there will once again be no real solutions offered on the part of any of our usual LPSG players. So, have at it folks and when you are done be sure to look around at the mess you guys have left in your tirades...and then notice you have once more not offered one single solitary real solution. (Terminate Bush does not qualify as a real solution, so don't even try that one)
     
  4. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it qualifies as a real solution. If the captain of the ship insists on "staying the course", even when that course has been proven to be disastrous, then changing captains is a reasonable way of avoiding the iceberg ahead.

    As sensitive as you are to so-called "Let's Bash George" threads, you haven't offered anything constructive in these threads, either.

    We've been in Iraq for over 3.5 years, at a cost of over 333 billion dollars, the lives of over 3,000 US and coalition soldiers, over 43,000 Iraqi civilians. We have not succeeded in stablizing the country, and we have not found the weapons of mass destruction that were claimed to have been there. Instead, we burned through the entire federal surplus and have the biggest federal deficit in history.

    You want a "real" solution? Try implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission (found here), which include:

    • "We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help."
    • "The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly."
    • "The United States should rebuild the scholarship, exchange, and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope."
    • "The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive's use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use."
    • "Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes."
    • "[T]o combat the secrecy and complexity we have described, the overall amounts of money being appropriated for national intelligence and to its component agencies should no longer be kept secret."
    • "The U.S. border security system should be integrated into a larger network of screening points that includes our transportation system and access to vital facilities, such as nuclear reactors."
    The Commission made 41 separate recommendations, and I haven't listed them all here, but I've listed some of the recommendations that have been completely ignored by the current administration. (Personally, I disagree with a few of their recommendations, but defer to their expertise and consensus.)
     
  5. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    I love you Mindseye:wink: We were asked to offer real solutions. You hit a home run on this one.
     
  6. Freddie53

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    7,285
    Likes Received:
    61
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The South, USA
    I read the article. The blame falls mainly on Bush, but Cliinton doesn't get off the hook either.

    North Korea knows that the US isn't going to invade their country because there is no economic incentive for big American corporations for us to invade.

    Wars are predicated on economic issues more than other one factor.

    Had North Korea announced a HUGE oil find in its territory, then the US would be planning an invasion to destroy North Korea's capacity to make bombs or some trumpt up reason. (Kind of like taking a small child who has repeatedly asked for the potty to the bathroom after the child has shit himself. A little late to prevent the accident that the parent didn't want and no spare clothes for the child either.)

    Being a poor country with no economic opportunities does much more to protect North Korea from attack from the US than anything else.

    Of course the US could move small tactical nuclear missles into South Korea as a surefire warning to North Korea that an attack on the South would mean total destruction of North Korea and most of its people. But I doubt their present government gives a rat's ass if millions of North Korean citizens die or not.

    No mistake about it though. The article makes it clear that the stupidly designed policy toward North Korea is what caused that country to reopen its nuclear arms program. And in light of how the US handles countries it doesn't like and can't defend themselves, one should not be surprised.
     
  7. ClaireTalon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Puget Sound
    I have ever since had North Korea higher on my list of troublemakers than Iraq, and found the Clinton administration's NK policy rather naive, and too benevolent considering the nuclear ambitions of Northern Korea.

    Earlier this year, NK showed us the apparently working gun, with their missile test. Now they have also shown us that they have the bullet to fire. The key here is that none of these tests gave us a clear picture. The warhead tested now has been estimated 550 tons in strength, which is 2.5% of a Hiroshima type bomb, and 5 to 10% the strength of a small tactical device. The long-range missile appeared to be working, but we can't say for sure whether it had been destroyed in flight on purpose, avoiding an accidental explosion. Neither can we say much about the accuracy of its target acquisition and tracking equipment. In other words, nobody can yet say how reliable and powerful NK's nuclear arsenal really is.

    The most endangered country involved here is South Korea, which in my opinion is also the only country that has to worry seriously about an attack. Japan, and other "reliable" US-friendly nations in the Pacific area are too far for a 100%-guaranteed serious nuclear attack, I don't trust NK's long-range missile to hit exactly across such distances. So the question is, will they risk a number of such as 10, 12 nuclear strikes with small devices, if that is the price for an attack of allied forces against NK? 10 to 12 strikes is a small number, but given the concentration of military, industrial and civil targets on the Southern Korean peninsula, it would be nearly lethal to the country, not to forget the long-time effects of 12 nuclear explosions.

    However, I think NK is one of the problems that is really calling for a military solution. The past has proven Kim Yong Il and his administration to be resistant against all kinds of diplomatic measures. Sanctions and embargos won't drive him out of office. But as the situation is now, the price to pay for the military option has soared, compared to what it was before we had to take nuclear weapons into the calculation.
     
  8. rawbone8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,864
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Toronto (ON, CA)
    What are they going to do? Bush and Rove will try their best to ratchet up the fear factor and turn it to their base as reason to support the Commander in Chief's party in upcoming elections.

    Actually, Kim probably is not much more of a clear and present danger today. His most efficient means of delivering a nuclear payload is still probably in the trunk of a taxi, rather than in a fully functioning ballistic missile. That's not to say a taxi wouldn't be extremely effective. Seoul is less than an hour drive from the border. A weapon could conceivably be driven into a city of 11 million on the sly.

    What he and his scientists have done is put his balls on impressive display to his own hawkish military, and keep him on top of his regime. This is posturing on a massive scale. China's extremely negative reaction may be the only economic one that matters to North Korea. If Kim can maintain paying and feeding his million man army he'll continue to let the other 24 million people struggle, and the least important of those starve.

    If Bush had not dismantled the promising Clinton approach, and not gone on to issue a gunslinger challenge, the situation might be quite different now. Kim's reasoning is that he can't trust any deal the Americans may offer, so he has to create his own nuclear shield like Pakistan and India have done. Iran undoubtedly sees the wisdom of that approach. They'll be taken in a more serious way once they prove to be difficult to invade, or so the thinking goes.

    The Asian arms race is on, unfortunately for all.

    I expect the real problems will arise in the future when North Korean ships are sunk at sea for trying to evade a US led embargo. Who knows to what level of international crisis those types of events may lead.

    The US is not directly threatened here unless South Korea is attacked by North Korea. The US is likely going to rely on a deal with China to work out a solution. After all, China certainly doesn't want South Korea to get US short range missiles or the South Korean made equivalent installed on South Korean soil. Japan is the other nation likely to arm itself and that is likely to stir up more of a controversy in the region than North Korea's gambit.
     
  9. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    ManiacalMadMan, I still don't understand why you always assume that criticism of the current administration is "republican-bashing." It is not. It is idiot-bashing. Do not assume that because I detest the policies and actions of the current administration that I either hate republicans or support democrats. I actually have gained a modicum of respect for Mr. Arlen Specter. It would not matter to me if a democrat were in the presidency; blatant disregard for constitutional mandates and the sorts of things going on in Iraq are disgusting, regardless of who is responsible.

    Mindseye had some most excellent comments, but I think I can sum it up a little better:

    The United States of America needs to stop claiming soverignty as the world police. The US must immediately stop its imperialist attitude. The US must fix a huge number of internal problems before presuming to fix the problems of other countries. When it becomes necessary to be involved in a foreign country, the reasons must be clear and concise.

    Way back in early 2002, before our country invaded Iraq, I was asking the question "North Korea has already stated, for the record, that they are developing nuclear arms and intend to use them. They have stated that the USA is their enemy. The evidence of WMD in Iraq is scanty at best. Why are we focusing on Iraq?" ManiacalMadMan, I think you know the answers to those questions.

    If the US Government would stop trying to murder foreign leaders and remake their governments and societies, I guarantee that the terrorists would focus elsewhere.
     
  10. madame_zora

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,252
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Ohio
    I don't really give a fuck if you're "miffed" or not! What could possibly be your fucking problem? How much will it take for "you people" to admit this whole thing was a big mistake? Ten scandals? Twenty? Fifty? Seriously, what's the number? Whatever it is, we must be getting close. Oh I remember- there is NO number. You assholes don't believe in personal responsibility. Fuck you.

    The weapons "we" have at hand are the ones graciously provided by "your" party. Suck it up- you voted for it, you defended it and you're defending it still. YOU are part of the problem.

    I haven't always been anti-republican, but then again, republicans have never been quite this filthy. DC's right, I'm against the behaviors but you who are left with egg on your faces and no excuses can only say it's "our" fault for leaving a mess. How the fuck do you figure that? If the 9/11 commission report didn't offer enough suggestions, why would some cranky-pants posters on a dick site be more helpful? It's not like anyone's going to implement our suggestions, you idiot!

    Terminating bush is the beginning, and you bet your ass you're going to be hearing more about that, here and everywhere else. Once again, suck it up. The republican party has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are soulless, greedy bastards who didn't mind involving us in WAR to make a buck. Haliburton or its holding companies got the contracts for rebuilding Iraq AND New Orleans. Bang-up job thus far, wouldn't you say? Dead bodies STILL in New Orleans and the police training facility in Iraq is condemned less than a year after it's built. If you can't see pockets being lined, then you're too stupid to be breathing our air.

    Much wiser people than myself have called for george bush to be prosecuted for war crimes for violating the Geneva Convention, I happen to be in agreement. Gee, maybe it's actually because he violated the Geneva Convention, and not just because I don't like republicans, whaddaya think?
    Don't worry, I don't really expect you to understand even a small portion of what any of us are saying, we know your ego is too delicate to even consider admitting you might be wrong- "you people" need the benefit of the pack, you can't stand alone and determine right from wrong. Sad, and we will all pay.
     
  11. BuddyBoy

    BuddyBoy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2006
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Yeah, and I was quite surprised that it was even possible to create a device with a yield this low. Wouldn't it have to be a very sub-critical mass highly compressed?

    I'm wondering if it's possible that this test was a bluff. 550 tons of conventional HE vs. a small nuke? I wonder.
     
  12. DC_DEEP

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    9,029
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just yesterday, I was watching a program on The History Channel about "big flops in weapons of war". One that was developed and tested, but scrapped immediately, was the nuclear warhead rifle. Actually a bit larger than a rifle - more like a rocket-launcher or mortar, but it could (if necessary) be set up and operated by one man. The biggest problem? It could not propel the warhead far enough. When used as designed, the soldier could be relatively safe from the resulting blast, but would be caught in the deadly fallout.

    My knowledge of chemistry and physics does not extend far enough into the fundamentals of fission bombs to say what constitutes critical mass, but apparently it can be achieved in a fairly small device.
     
  13. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't really believe (I already am aware that you and your ilk are unable to think) that after your opening foul language salvo I would ever pay mind to anything you say, now do you? Yes, yes, yes. I am quite aware of the fact that you don't care about whether or not I pay your ramblings any notice;however, I did feel it necessary to let you know that your writing style lacks any glue to attach your ideas into the minds of anyone.

    At least the others who responded to my comments used a civil tongue and were able to express their views clearly (this is not to say that I agree with them). You MZ are so filled with rancid hatred that you can no longer express yourself in a clear manner.
     
  14. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    First: The words in red are useless. Remove them. They make your argument sound rather weak.

    Second: The words in blue are false. Mme Zora expresses her ideas quite clearly. I have been able to understand exactly what she is saying, as has nearly everyone else who has posted to this thread. Perhaps, then, the problem lies in your inability to understand her point of view.
     
  15. Wonderboy

    Wonderboy New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    High Above The Mucky Muck
    George W is the most unintelligent person I have ever seen in the most powerful position in the world. Its scary that someone so...unqualified, even stupid, could become president of the US.

    I don't see how anyone can defend him or support him in any of his mistakes. I mean decisions.

    Mme Z talks sense and the world hasn't got any better since George was in charge. I'm not saying it would be any better if anyone else had been in charge but with him its one mistake after another. Mistakes are avoidable, if you have the intelligence to see and correct them.

    History will not be kind to George Bush. In much the same way that concentrated acid is not kind to skin.
     
  16. B_big dirigible

    B_big dirigible New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    2,739
    Likes Received:
    0
    She sure does. The idea she's clearly expressing is, "I've forgotten my meds and I can't get up!"

    The same idea she usually expresses. Interesting, perhaps, in a diagnostic sort of way.
     
  17. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male

    'twould explain quite a bit.
     
  18. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    The issue I had/have with Madame Zora is that such vulgar language towards me is not going to help me put any stock in anything she has to say. I may not necessarily agree with all the comments which are placed here; however, I find that other posters (mindseye, DCDeep, Freddie53, even Lex (a person I really do not seem to care for) are able to express themselves without resorting to words which are as meaningless as Zora herself currently seems to be.

    joyboytoy79, you say that I have an inability to understand Madame Zora's point of view, well, how am I to be led to even find her point of view when she shields it within obscenities? I understand the words of Mindseye, even while disagreeing. The same is true of the others (including Lex). This is not a matter of whether or not she has a right to use certain words, clearly she does, this is after all an open and free spirited board which should be open to all ideas and language styles. The thing is, that there is a time and place for particular language. Being called an asshole and an idiot is not going to get anyone onto her side of the road...if you, Madame Zora or anyone else is too dense (or enamored of her) to realize that, then perhaps it is you who has a difficulty in understanding things.
     
  19. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    A friendly reminder:

    The ETC section is for "Off-topic postings, current events, rants and raves"... as per the byline.

    I know that people have gotten hyper-sensitive over the ToS, but clearly, this is one of those sections of the forum where people should not throw out opinions unless they are prepared to have those opinions thrown back at them.

    I recall when I first joined, I read the ECT section and did not post here for about 6 months or so. The debates here are intense and the weak-kneed need not participate.

    We Mods are trying to be less invasive. Clearly, the flipside of this is that people have to also wear thicker skins (kevlar?) and settle their disagreements on the board (or in PM) like adults. You can't have it both ways.

    It's rather like someone posting a pic of their cock or breast with 100 piercings and then getting upset when someone inevitably says it's gross.

    To that I say: "What the fuck, you fucking fuck?!?" :rolleyes:

    Be prepared for ALL opinions, not just the ones you want to agree or disagree with.
     
  20. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Says the self-proclaimed mad man...

    Now, back on topic. What do you think is a logical solution to this problem, or any of the other fine messes Mr. Bush has gotten us into? You've stated your dissaproval at our lack of suggestions, now offer your own suggestions. It would do much to solidify an otherwise leaky argument.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted