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

[brainzz_n_dong]

Are we supposed to take this statement seriously? I assert that your knowledge of foreign affairs comes from FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS, or worse yet, right wing talk radio. Stop listening to Rush and Sean, they are MORONS with nothing but nationalist, xenophobic, hate rhetoric coming out of their mouths. What the fuck has Hugo Chavez done to America? NOTHING!
President Ahmadenejad (AH-MAH-DEN-EE-JAD how hard is that?) doesn't even make the decisions in Iran, he's like the fucking mayor of Tehran. You right wingers need to get out more.

I don't give a damn if you take anything I say seriously or not. Having posted as a conservative inside Et Cetera for about 1.5 years, I know it a safe bet to assume that about 99% of the posters here think me to be full of shit. Yet, knowing that, I occasionally revoke my ghost status to come back for more as it's so damn much fun...in limited doses.

As for who I listen to and what I read, I try to do quite well in balancing my intake of viewpoints. I'm flattered with your concern for me on that point.

The speed with which you jump to dismiss & auto-characterize anything that I'd dare say as being nothing more than bastardized recyclings of xenophobic hate rhetoric says, to me, that you feel what I had to say wasn't as impt as trying to colorize it was. Like that ain't been tried here before

If the apparent DailyKos- & Soros- inspired world view you hold tells you that the whole NK event is a staged production to nuclearly enable Japan, that Ahmadenejad is nothing more than the Persian version of Marion Berry, and that I'm full of shit, more power to you. Hopefully neither one of us sees the value in telling the other "I think you're wrong" another 100 different ways and times.

 

[tripod]

I DO NOT think you are full of shit... I am just one of those "fighting liberals" and usually jump the gun, sorry if I was insulting (I can be an ass). Actually, that theory is my own and it probably doesn't hold much water, but it just might.

 

[ClaireTalon]

Oh yes, we will hurt him. Somehow he has to get all his luxury goods into the country, right? And I bet, for a ride in my lap, that he uses his state-owned airline and diplomatic mail to do so. So, grounding Air Koryo would be a first step, in some countries they're not allowed to take-off/land anymore anyways. And hitting his population with embargos? I don't think they can be hit any harder than they're already suffering under his policy.

I don't think nuclear weapons in his hands can be considered and discussed the same way that you can discuss the nuclear threat of the cold war. Nobody was then playing the immediate, open threatening card then, and their use in a case of war was even officially declared as the last option, in the strategy change from Massive Retaliation to Flexible Response in the 60s.

Really thinking that negotiations with the NK political leadership will have any success is rather naive. They're like drivers who don't bother about traffic rules: Set facts, and see how the others deal with them. So it really is like this, the NK problem is demanding a military solution almost inevitably, or very hard embargos at least. Yes, a war would put South Korea in a position where they will suffer losses and take damage. So it is really also about whether they are willing to pay that price now to be permanently relieved from the constant threat from the Northerners.

But if we cut the lines of supply, Claire, who do we really hurt? Surely not Kim Jong-il and his gang. The screws will simply be further tightened on the already hard suffering North Korean populace. This will give Kim further reason to incite domestic hysteria and tighten control beyond the already unimaginable levels in place now.
A military option seems almost unthinkable. Even without nuclear weapons, he could do grievous damage to South Korea.
I know I'm not saying anything new or original.
If military action is taken, tomorrow would be better than next week. But neither can be justified, imho.
I think we have to talk to the North Koreans, gentle them as best we can, and live with the fact that their pop-guns are nuclear-tipped (or very soon will be), just as the West's have been for more than four decades.
And if we find the insolence of Kim insufferable, we may find that speaking to him with some semblance of respect, even through gritted teeth, may go some distance toward removing that irritant.

 

[dong20]

Oh yes, we will hurt him. Somehow he has to get all his luxury goods into the country, right? And I bet, for a ride in my lap, that he uses his state-owned airline and diplomatic mail to do so. So, grounding Air Koryo would be a first step, in some countries they're not allowed to take-off/land anymore anyways. And hitting his population with embargos? I don't think they can be hit any harder than they're already suffering under his policy..

Perhaps, a little inconvenience would result but leaders such as this don't get to where they are, as they are without learning a few tricks and backdoors. Such actions would be pretty futile as well as appearing petulant - I don't like you so I'll take your toffees, that will teach you to play fair? Worse they are predicated on the assumption that the US even has the right to take such action, a right that is ordained by whom (and no I don't mean the UN )?

Not making the situation for NK citizens worse is hardly justification, I though the aim was to make it better for them? Banning his airline well that will show him, diplomatic mail is misused by (and on behalf of) other nations also, so are you suggesting that all NK bound dip bags are subject to search - good luck on implementing that one and you say we're naive!

Really thinking that negotiations with the NK political leadership will have any success is rather naive. They're like drivers who don't bother about traffic rules: Set facts, and see how the others deal with them. So it really is like this, the NK problem is demanding a military solution almost inevitably, or very hard embargos at least. Yes, a war would put South Korea in a position where they will suffer losses and take damage. So it is really also about whether they are willing to pay that price now to be permanently relieved from the constant threat from the Northerners.

So trying to stop their leaders from getting their truffles is the alternative? Embargos are, as has been proven repeatedly pretty much a waste of time, and seldom hit the intended target, why would you think NK will be different? It didn't work too well with Cuba did it and they're in your own back yard. Are you seriously suggesting that South Korea is a price worth paying to force regime change in North Korea, tell me you're not. Even more so if such a price is paid against their will, to fluff the egos of US foreign policy hawks.

The time to take effective, lower risk military action against NK when it would have made a real difference has long passed. I think the price now would likely be the (at least partial) elimination of South Korea so that would pretty much an own goal on their part I'd say, even if they were to play willingly. It would almost certainly lead to the re-arming of Japan and who knows where it would end.

Facts - Here's two :

1. NK has nuclear capability.
2. The US can do nothing to change that - without risking a catastropic outcome.

US power in the region is not what it was an nothing like the US would like to believe it is. Once all the bluster has died down, the only realistic way forward is negotiation as it usually is. Well, short of all out military action which, surely, is a leap backward.

The sooner the US accepts that it no longer has the power to cow those it dislikes into humble submission the safer we will all be. Starting with the South Koreans.

Aside: If the US wants to show it 'cares', let it start with Zimbabwe, or Sudan. Then, just then I may begin to take it seriously. I won't hold my breath.

 

[ClaireTalon]

Okay, I apologize for calling Senor Rubirosa naive. The topic agitates was a bit agitated, and overshot it. I hope he takes my apologies?

However, I stand by my original opinion that negotiations are a waste of time here. The UN, we ourselves, and the other Asian nations have proved that during the last years, we literally slept until it was too late, while the DPRK has made well use of that time and now can wave the big gun and scare the shit out of us. The time for easy solutions has passed by now, and whatever action is taken, the nuclear threat is looming over us now.

The problem about negotiations is that DPRK are in a position of strength now. The fact is that their active army outnumbers ROK (South Korea) 2 for 1 (1.2 million vs. 650.000), and in the reserve forces the correlation is even more contrasted at 2.5 for 1: nearly 7.5 million (DPRK) vs. 3 million (ROK). Their systems and equipment are obsolete, and their training routines outdated, but that doesn't really count much when they're within knife fight range, which ROK basically is. And if that wasn't enough, the nuclear threat now forces all the serious military opponents in the region to remain passive, unless someone wants to risk a nuclear strike.

This means DPRK will win, whatever the negotiations yield as a result. They can threaten everyone with nuclear strikes if they don't like the results, and, as you pointed out correctly, they don't care about sanctions that only hit the country as such. So, even if only in some little way there's a possibility to rattle the leaders' cages, it must be exploited to improve the West's situation and give us the ability to negotiate from a position of strength. I know that diplomatic bags has always been misused to get things in that aren't for everyone's eyes, but the fact that it is a common practice doesn't make it a bad option. Moreover, DPRK's modus operandi of purchasing things in foreign countries is well known so far, they have used czech and kazakhian intermediate companies. That way, they have bought some military hardware in the early 90s from the Russians.

You have also pointed out correctly that ROK's existence is at stake here. Be it a conventional attack, or really a nuclear weapon, they are most likely to become the victim of a DPRK strike. I don't say we shall risk that, but the key really is how much ROK are willing to expose themselves to that risk, if they stand to bargain being relieved from the imminent threat of the DPRK. And dragging this conflict on by endless negotiations, or even ignoring DPRK and acknowledging their status as nuclear power, is certainly not the option to chose here. Reunification with the south is part of DPRK's military doctrine, and with nuclear weapons to deter the West, and a numerically large army, they're at the best position to approach that aim.

Perhaps, a little inconvenience would result but leaders such as this don't get to where they are, as they are without learning a few tricks and backdoors. Such actions would be pretty futile as well as appearing petulant - I don't like you so I'll take your toffees, that will teach you to play fair? Worse they are predicated on the assumption that the US even has the right to take such action, a right that is ordained by whom (and no I don't mean the UN )?

Not making the situation for NK citizens worse is hardly justification, I though the aim was to make it better for them? Banning his airline well that will show him, diplomatic mail is misused by (and on behalf of) other nations also, so are you suggesting that all NK bound dip bags are subject to search - good luck on implementing that one and you say we're naive!



So trying to stop their leaders from getting their truffles is the alternative? Embargos are, as has been proven repeatedly pretty much a waste of time, and seldom hit the intended target, why would you think NK will be different? It didn't work too well with Cuba did it and they're in your own back yard. Are you seriously suggesting that South Korea is a price worth paying to force regime change in North Korea, tell me you're not. Even more so if such a price is paid against their will, to fluff the egos of US foreign policy hawks.

The time to take effective, lower risk military action against NK when it would have made a real difference has long passed. I think the price now would likely be the (at least partial) elimination of South Korea so that would pretty much an own goal on their part I'd say, even if they were to play willingly. It would almost certainly lead to the re-arming of Japan and who knows where it would end.

Facts - Here's two :

1. NK has nuclear capability.
2. The US can do nothing to change that - without risking a catastropic outcome.

US power in the region is not what it was an nothing like the US would like to believe it is. Once all the bluster has died down, the only realistic way forward is negotiation as it usually is. Well, short of all out military action which, surely, is a leap backward.

The sooner the US accepts that it no longer has the power to cow those it dislikes into humble submission the safer we will all be. Starting with the South Koreans.

Aside: If the US wants to show it 'cares', let it start with Zimbabwe, or Sudan. Then, just then I may begin to take it seriously. I won't hold my breath.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Okay, I apologize for calling Senor Rubirosa naive. The topic agitates was a bit agitated, and overshot it. I hope he takes my apologies?

No problem whatsoever, Claire. I enjoy your posts. We just happen to see things a bit differently.

I can't see any military solution here.

I do think we should be as fully armed with conventional weaponry as possible so that any southward incursion by Kim's forces will be almost as ruinously costly as a nuclear strike. (We're probably virtually in that state of preparedness now ... you probably know more about this than I do.)

And then I think we should nurse the situation along, letting the regime eventually fall of its own incompetence and irrationality.

Maybe that won't happen for 30 years. Or maybe it will happen in five. Who, in 1987, say, would have predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union?

And we should allow the North Koreans to save some face. Not call them part of an axis of evil. Not make recurrent threats. Not make comparisons with Hitler and Stalin. Not challenge their collective egos and sense of honour.

Just let their slow-motion collapse pick up momentum. And wait however long we have to wait.

This would extend horribly the suffering of the North Korean people -- but at least keep, as far as possible, the human cost of the Kim Komedy Follies an entry on the North Korean balance sheet.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Claire,

This will initially sound like it's deviating from zora's thread, but it all comes back home to the point. I was reading earlier in the year that Rumsfeld had proposed in his 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review to drastically slash the US bomber fleet...basically to pay for more F-22's. What I had read was the the initial proposal was to cut the fleet to 21 B-2's, 75 B1's, and 38 B-52's, cutting about 20 B-1's and 55 B-52's out all together and also freezing all planned updates for the B-1's and B-52's. I also read that the proposal is to retire completely all of the stealth F-117 Nighthawk 'fighters'. I can't really find any further info on where that all stands. What have you heard?

Reason I bring it up: If we ever do end up in a shooting match with North Korea, whether its over nukes or him having an out of body experience and deciding to attack SK out of the blue (as crazy as Kim is I don't rule any possibility out), or any future conflict for that matter, how does proposing to retire more than half of our active bomber fleet & stealth aircraft make any sense? Especially when we don't have any replacements for the LR bombers.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Tripod,

I'm a fighting conservative. I'm also a wordy mofo. What takes Pecker 10 words to say takes me 10 paragraphs. I love to debate ideas here but don't have a lot of time for it. I'm a junior in college, with projects, tests, study time, work, a gf, cattle to tend, etc. Well, maybe not the livestock but you get the idea

Some here are too sensitive and worry too much about the tone of the et cetera forum. I know, I used to be one of them. I got over that by arguing with Zora and seeing her squabble with others over time. I guess I needed to grow a thicker skin, which itches but I think I'm getting. If someone blasts your ideas or you, blast back as needed. If she ever reads that she's influenced me in even the tinest of ways, it could cause heart problems (or the spitting of soda upon her comp screen) so you might check in on her.

Anyway, we're cool. If I ever come off the wrong way, feel free to call me out here or in PM and I'll do the same.


Peace

 

[madame_zora]

Tripod,

I'm a fighting conservative. I'm also a wordy mofo. What takes Pecker 10 words to say takes me 10 paragraphs. I love to debate ideas here but don't have a lot of time for it. I'm a junior in college, with projects, tests, study time, work, a gf, cattle to tend, etc. Well, maybe not the livestock but you get the idea

Some here are too sensitive and worry too much about the tone of the et cetera forum. I know, I used to be one of them. I got over that by arguing with Zora and seeing her squabble with others over time. I guess I needed to grow a thicker skin, which itches but I think I'm getting. If someone blasts your ideas or you, blast back as needed. If she ever reads that she's influenced me in even the tinest of ways, it could cause heart problems (or the spitting of soda upon her comp screen) so you might check in on her.

Anyway, we're cool. If I ever come off the wrong way, feel free to call me out here or in PM and I'll do the same.


Peace

*instantaneously drops dead of heart attack*

 

[dong20]

No problem whatsoever, Claire. I enjoy your posts. We just happen to see things a bit differently.

I agree, on all three counts:

This means DPRK will win, whatever the negotiations yield as a result. They can threaten everyone with nuclear strikes if they don't like the results, and, as you pointed out correctly, they don't care about sanctions that only hit the country as such. So, even if only in some little way there's a possibility to rattle the leaders' cages, it must be exploited to improve the West's situation and give us the ability to negotiate from a position of strength. I know that diplomatic bags has always been misused to get things in that aren't for everyone's eyes, but the fact that it is a common practice doesn't make it a bad option.

Claire, I don't really disagree with your philosophy on this, merely the realistic likelihood of its implementation or its efficacy. The thing is, if NK 'wins' what exactly do they win? They have not stated any overt or credible hostile intent regionally or globally. Right now I can't help but think this is in no small part grandstanding on the part of the US in feeling it must 'look tough' and put down this upstart and, on the part of NK for telling the US to go sit on something sharp - and on this I am right behind NK.:tongue: I'm all for rattling cages when needed but shouldn't be done in a way that doesn't get our head bitten off, or at least cover us all in shit?

I can't see any military solution here.

Not one that would be without terrible cost, no, neither do I.

....but the key really is how much ROK are willing to expose themselves to that risk, if they stand to bargain being relieved from the imminent threat of the DPRK. And dragging this conflict on by endless negotiations, or even ignoring DPRK and acknowledging their status as nuclear power, is certainly not the option to chose here. Reunification with the south is part of DPRK's military doctrine, and with nuclear weapons to deter the West, and a numerically large army, they're at the best position to approach that aim.

Good question, but I think one that ROK is best able to answer not the US. This is the a key part of my argument, NK does not present a clear and present danger to the US (or Europe for that matter), at least based on what's been seen so far. A nuclear NK is a potential threat to the region, ROK especially. However, any first strike against ROK for example would almost certainly ensure the immediate annihilation of NK. NK knows this of course so the question is; does it care?

Ideological arguments aside; if reunification is a desired rather than merely a stated goal one must infer that a ROK that glowed in the dark would not be the desired outcome. If this is the case I agree with Sr. R that, negotiations etc aside, some well placed sharp sticks (from China and perhaps ROK) combined with a little time may be the key. If NK was clearly and openly hell-bent on destruction that would be different, but I see little or no REAL evidence of that.

And then I think we should nurse the situation along, letting the regime eventually fall of its own incompetence and irrationality.

Maybe that won't happen for 30 years. Or maybe it will happen in five. Who, in 1987, say, would have predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union?...

Just let their slow-motion collapse pick up momentum. And wait however long we have to wait.

One can only hope, making it tough for the leadership may provide a little incentive as Claire says, I'm not convinced of that though. What I don't think it would do is tip the balance toward a rapid and total collapse, but then as you say; who knows for sure?

And we should allow the North Koreans to save some face. Not call them part of an axis of evil. Not make recurrent threats. Not make comparisons with Hitler and Stalin. Not challenge their collective egos and sense of honour.

Indeed, this is a key aspect of any solution, which is why I think it may be best handled in theatre. The Asia Pacific region doesn't want a rampant nuclear NK any more then EU/US do and I suspect a settlement formed from within the region will likely be more acceptable and lasting than one imposed from outside.

The same applies to Africa. I stand by my comments about Zim and Sudan though as these are clear and immediate humanitarian crises of large order. The situation with NK as it pertains to this topic is really more about potential threat than the imminent deaths and suffering of tens of thousands. This humanitarian aspect is not so evident in US posturing on NK, or maybe I missed it and I digress.

This would extend horribly the suffering of the North Korean people -- but at least keep, as far as possible, the human cost of the Kim Komedy Follies an entry on the North Korean balance sheet.

No doubt it would and I'm sure no one is pretending otherwise or that it's a clear cut issue. I'm sure though that precipitous military action would be something we would all live to regret and result in a far far higher cost; human, ecological and economic.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Just as a curious aside... does anyone besides me ever wonder why totalitarian regimes almost always rename their country, and almost always use the phrase "People's Republic" as part of the name, when it is so obvious that the republic does not belong to the people? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Honestly...

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Just as a curious aside... does anyone besides me ever wonder why totalitarian regimes almost always rename their country, and almost always use the phrase "People's Republic" as part of the name, when it is so obvious that the republic does not belong to the people? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Honestly...

They read their Goebbels, DC.

 

[dong20]

Just as a curious aside... does anyone besides me ever wonder why totalitarian regimes almost always rename their country, and almost always use the phrase "People's Republic" as part of the name, when it is so obvious that the republic does not belong to the people? Democratic People's Republic of Korea? Honestly...

I know, Zaire did the same and became the DRC - Democratic Republic of Congo - but it was anything but democratic. Lex - The US were complicit here in withdrawing their long time support for Mobuto there and thus indirectly helping Rwandan atrocities. Then they back the newly 'installed' Kabila government...

Conspiracists, can you see a pattern?

 

[BuddyBoy]

*instantaneously drops dead of heart attack*

Breaks out the Ella Fitzgerald cover of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead." :biggrin1:

 

[rawbone8]

Although Kim's representatives have stated that this "purported" advance in nuclear bomb making is clearly a stance designed to counter aggressive US threats, we should also consider that Kim is also putting China in a hands-off posture as well, since thay are far more likely than the US to have territorial ambitions on North Korea, as either a buffer state (which they already are in effect) or part of a long term ideology of reforming ancient empire boundaries.

There have been some specious "scholarly" works that were published in China in the past couple of years that made the claim that the two Koreas are actually part of the physical territory that belonged historically to China. It really rattled some cages in South Korea and North Korea that China was once again manufacturing fictitious history which could be the philosophical basis for future encroachments.

China has also been trying to steer the Dear Leader next door to adopt some of the economic reforms that have been introduced in China, but I think Kim is reluctant to change from his Stalinist roots because he doesn't see a secure future for himself in that direction. He's a gangster who is unwilling to share power with anyone in NK.

My point is that this nuclear development is also a national sovereignty issue for North Korea as well as personal job protection for Kim, and thirdly a bid for enhanced world status.

The Chinese aren't likely to invade, in my opinion. They are probably more worried that millions of North Korean refugees may over run their border in the event of any hostilities.

Of course all bets are off if the US attacks North Korea in a "pre-emptive strike." China would not stand by for regime change by the US. Nor would Russia, since they share a border too.

 

[slate_australis]

The Clinton policy towards NKorea was naive... but it was productive. North Korea didn't go further in attaining nuclear status until the Bush Administration turned internaitonal diplomacy into a dick measurng contest.

 

[BuddyBoy]

Ok, I'm a myopic geek, fixated on the little details and sometime I miss the big picture. It would help if I actually read more than the summary page of the Economist I subscribe to, but, truthfully, I'd rather spend time with a trashy dectective novel.

Here's the question: How does the NK / SK issue differ significantly from India / Pakistan? India and Pakistant BOTH have nuclear weapons, have active conflicts, territorial displutes and bi-national terrorism, and, if I'm not mistaken, the US has continued to offer nuclear supplies to India in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Canada, for example, ceased selling India supplies and reactors after India's bomb test.

Pakistan is also apparently still home to many Al-Queda terrorism training camps and thereby a "direct threat" to the US.

And North Korea is the problem?

I'm not kidding when I say I'm myopic; if someone can explain I'd appreciate it.

 

[slate_australis]

Pakistan only has nukes because India got them - they are also run by people who have a vague idea of the realities should one strike the other. The basic issue is, they don't have nukes to use them - they have them to have them.

North Korea is SORT of the same... but not quite.
Pyongyang is a very rarified environment - let's consider the VERY different political culture - Kim Jong Il isn't even supreme ruler - his dead father Kim Il Sum is leader for all eternity. They got nukes because they were threatened - and realised that no one is going to screw with you once you have nukes.

The problem I have with Pakistan is that it is a military dictatorship whose power is terribly shaky - Al Qaeda has NOTHING to do with this. North Korea is paranoid and that is MORE than enough to scare me.

 

[rawbone8]

Ok, I'm a myopic geek, fixated on the little details and sometime I miss the big picture. It would help if I actually read more than the summary page of the Economist I subscribe to, but, truthfully, I'd rather spend time with a trashy dectective novel.

Here's the question: How does the NK / SK issue differ significantly from India / Pakistan? India and Pakistant BOTH have nuclear weapons, have active conflicts, territorial displutes and bi-national terrorism, and, if I'm not mistaken, the US has continued to offer nuclear supplies to India in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Canada, for example, ceased selling India supplies and reactors after India's bomb test.

Pakistan is also apparently still home to many Al-Queda terrorism training camps and thereby a "direct threat" to the US.

And North Korea is the problem?

I'm not kidding when I say I'm myopic; if someone can explain I'd appreciate it.

Pattern of US World Police diplomacy:

1. Indicate that the offending (weaker) nations are beneath contempt, on par with the Nazis and make a facetious attempt (if at all) to diplomatically dictate terms for change.

2. Attack at whatever deadline seems appropriate. It's pretty much a given that much weaker opponent countries like Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan get overwhemingly brutal reponses, carpet bombing, shock and awe, bunker busters etc. to teach them and ANY other upstarts a blunt lesson: fuck with us and you are toast.

3. Don't fuck with a powerful opponent. Bluff and posture a hell of a lot, but in the end negotiate a resolution that keeps the peace. Having nuclear arms is the ticket into that club.

 

[BuddyBoy]

3. Don't fuck with a powerful opponent. Bluff and posture a hell of a lot, but in the end negotiate a resolution that keeps the peace. Having nuclear arms is the ticket into that club.

Well, that explains the Cuban missle crisis. I never understood how it was OK for the US to have missles in Turkey, but not for the USSR to have missles in Cuba.