North Korea says nuclear test successful , Oh shit.

[Kefka]

Bush calls for immediate action on N.Korea

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/67756.php/Bush-calls-for-immediate-action-on-NKorea

Send them flowers for getting Foley out of the headlines![/Whitehouse]

 

[Kefka]

How NK outsmarted US

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/10/game-set-match-how-nk-outsmarted-us.html

This confirms the analysis I posted last night, that even though North Korea is providing a distraction from page-gate, the fact of North Korea's test will be seen as a failure of the Bush foreign policy.

That is, if Bush's real objective were to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons.

However, from the outset in 2002, I commented that the only reason North Korea was on the "Axis of Evil" list to begin with was to obfuscate the fact that the list of countries the US was going to attack consisted mostly of Israel's enemies in the Mideast. So, North Korea got adde d to the list so that the Neocons could say, "We're not just attacking who Israel tells us to. North Korea is on that list!" Well, yesterday's test proves that Bush and the Neocons were not taking North Korea seriously at all; that it was just window dressing for the war on Israel's enemies.

So now, Bush is stuck. He can't invade Iran because they might someday make a nuclear weapon when North Korea provably has them, nor can he invade North Korea because they DO actually have nuclear weapons. As Iraq proved, the US only feels butch about invading nations that do NOT have weapons of mass destruction.

It is arguable whether North Korea can really deliver a warhead to the US, nor would they be wise to try to do so. But North Korea could easily drop one of their warheads into the middle of a blockading naval force just off their shores. That is, of course, the real purpose of having nuclear weapons; to stop an invasion.

Bush screwed himself on this deal, first by adding North Korea to the "Axis of Evil" and killing President Kim Dae-jung efforts at peace in 2002, then by failing to follow through with North Korea itself by finding a negotiated settlement to the artificially created crisis. - MR

 

[The Question]

A) We invaded Afghanistan first.

Could we, for a change, put aside partisan bickering and think about a workable solution? Or is it better to stand around making smart alec remarks while the missile silos are loaded and the launch begins?

Pretty much the latter, unless you can think of a way to go through the whole revolution/founding of the country thing again before that happens.

 

[eloisel]

North Korea has repeatedly agreed to junk its nuclear weapons provided the US does three things: 1. deal directly with Pyongyang, which Washington refuses to do; 2. provide security guarantees that the US will not attack North Korea; 3. provide economic aid.

Yes. We see how well that worked, considering all that the Clinton administration paid and gave to them.

The Bush Administration’s hard-line neoconservatives refuse to ‘validate’ North Korea’s totalitarian regime through direct talks. Neocons are determined to overthrow Kim Jong-il.

Wait a minute.

Bush wants to invade Iran. Bush does NOT want to invade North Korea. But he cannot invade Iran because they might someday make nuclear weapons while North Korea actually has them. Therefor, North Korea is declared not to have really exploded a test nuclear weapon and the invasion of Iran proceeds apace.

Neocons must not be as eager to overthrow Kim Jong-il as previously declared.

 

[The Question]

Yes. We see how well that worked, considering all that the Clinton administration paid and gave to them.

Exactly -- appeasing hostage-takers (and that's essentially what any country who holds the threat of nuclear assault as a bargaining chip to try to extort money from other countries is doing) does nothing to resolve the issue.

Wait a minute...

...Neocons must not be as eager to overthrow Kim Jong-il as previously declared.

Just goes to show where their priorities are -- and their priorities don't include the best interests of the U.S.

 

[Mentalist]

Washington is paranoid and N. Korea is even more paranoid. There is no direct communication between Pyongyang and Washington and as such the possibility for a misjudging of the situation is pretty damn high, methinks.

But what is the reality here?

Are we going to attack N. Korea? Pfft.. Like fuck we are. We're pretty much guaranteed another major "campaign" before 2012 but I very much doubt it will be N. Korea. As Kefka and TQ already said we are gearing up for more fun and hi jinks in the Middle East. Asia is a whole other kettle of fish and we have been told repeatedly that the situation in N. Korea is different from Iran due.. to something, I'm not sure what, but they said it!

Reports at the moment put the blast in the 1-2 kiloton range. Compare that with the 14 kiloton bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and it reads as pretty pathetic. There is still some contention over whether it is a true Nuclear explosion and if something might not have gone wrong with the device. And of course we still don't know if N. Korea has overcome the problem of miniaturization..

I mean, we have been technically at war with N. Korea for years. We don't recognize them as a valid state and the whole reason it has tested this Nuclear device is due to U.S policy and paranoia that the U.S. would attempt to overthrow them.

As far as I'm concerned N. Korea is not a valid state and it has a long way to go before it proves itself as one. The human rights situation in N. Korea is by all accounts one of the worst on the fucking planet. The six-party talks never really went anywhere because Japan and the U.S have played hard ball with N. Korea compared to Russia and China and I tend to side with the U.S/Japan position against N. Korea. This is a stamp of the foot to continue negotiations but I can't see the U.S or Japan giving up on some of the finer points of the Six-Party talks.

If they did fail to create a proper nuclear explosion then they would not have mastered miniaturization so the threat is going to stay minimal for quite a while and I don't think N. Korea is going to start shooting at anyone let alone the U.S. so any hubbub over them being a direct threat right now is premature.


Besides..

We're busy..

 

[headvoid]

It comes to something when I wish Reagan were still president. At least he was good at toppling states using highly dubious but more diplomatic methods. (apart from when he was caught)

Reagan would be pumping money into a North Korean underground movement, propaganda etc.

History will not be kind to the Bush approach.

 

[The Question]

You know, I think I've figured out who Omuhgawdahmadinnerplate REALLY is...

The Iranians watched Star Trek: Nemesis and thought the Romulans had a great idea with trying to clone the enemy's leader.

Problem for the Iranians was, they were mistaking M*A*S*H* re-runs for documentaries and assumed that Alan Alda was our President.

 

[Ogami]

Sarek wrote:

Why, exactly what Bush did after Al Queada attacked on 9/11 of course! He ignored the real threat and invaded Iraq.

So immediately after September 11th 2001, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Wait a minute, that's a passage of more than a year! Sarek must have been stuck in a time warp. You poor thing!

So when FDR declared war on Japan, and immediately focused all resources in fighting Germany (as he had promised Churchill in private), I guess FDR distracted World War II as well! Let's impeach and try Roosevelt as a war criminal, Sarek, cause he did an immediate switch after Pearl Harbor and put fighting Japan on the backburner. Bush's first act after 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan, get your facts and your timeline right.

I guess you really do need a bootlicker like Kefka. It's not like you can get by on your own.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

So when FDR declared war on Japan, and immediately focused all resources in fighting Germany (as he had promised Churchill in private), I guess FDR distracted World War II as well! Let's impeach and try Roosevelt as a war criminal, Sarek, cause he did an immediate switch after Pearl Harbor and put fighting Japan on the backburner. Bush's first act after 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan, get your facts and your timeline right.

Basically, yes -- both were bait-and-switch cons. We didn't get attacked by Germany, but Germany was the main attraction -- Pearl Harbor was only a pretext to allow FDR to keep his little deal with Churchill, as you yourself took note of). We weren't attacked by Iraq, but Iraq has had center stage. Same thing, different century.

 

[eloisel]

By and large, I agree with Mentalist's assessment of this situation.

From the CIA Fact Book, in the last 6-party talks in 2005:

All parties agreed to a Joint Statement of Principles in which, among other things, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. In the Joint Statement, the DPRK committed to "abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards." The Joint Statement also commits the US and other parties to certain actions as the DPRK denuclearizes. The US offered a security assurance, specifying that it had no nuclear weapons on ROK territory and no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or other weapons.

There is some speculation that the nuclear test was small because Kim Jong Il has limited supplies. What if he shot all he had in a desperate attempt to make the rest of the world believe they had some power to make us cave to whatever they demand? Apparently, Kim Jong Il hasn't been paying attention. Dictators that boast of having WMDs but don't have any wind up in jail cells washing their underwear out by hand.

I can see and hear it now. Bush invades North Korea to get or neutralize their nuclear weapons. Not much, or nothing is found. Soldiers and civilians are killed. "Bush lied. People died." Then China sends in a few million insurgents.

China, Russia, South Korea, Japan - they have more reason to be concerned about North Korea's nuclear capabilities at this point. I'm in agreement that we can stand a bit more diplomacy here and urge China and Russia to pressure North Korea. China wants to be the Super Power in that region. It is a big planet - we can stand another Super Power as long as they realize that with the title comes a lot of unpleasant responsibility. I also approve of the plan regarding all ships in and out of North Korea being inspected to make certain Kim Jong Il can't get his nuclear program to a stage where they are a long range threat.

 

[eloisel]

Exactly -- appeasing hostage-takers (and that's essentially what any country who holds the threat of nuclear assault as a bargaining chip to try to extort money from other countries is doing) does nothing to resolve the issue.

I agree with that too. However, has Kim Jong Il actually threatened assault or has he just taken a defensive posture?

 

[The Question]

I agree with that too. However, has Kim Jong Il actually threatened assault or has he just taken a defensive posture?

Well, from your own post:

North Korea has repeatedly agreed to junk its nuclear weapons provided the US does three things: 1. deal directly with Pyongyang, which Washington refuses to do; 2. provide security guarantees that the US will not attack North Korea; 3. provide economic aid.

So it seems to me that it's a little of both -- one part, "Don't attack us!" and one part, "You pay bribe!"

 

[Kefka]

No axis of evil member would ever be evil enough to threaten actual assault because the USA has a NUCLEAR DETERRENT. Except when it comes to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. That's when this fact magically vanishes from the debate.

 

[The Question]

No no no -- it's a "NOOKYALERR" deterrent.

 

[eloisel]

I agree with that too. However, has Kim Jong Il actually threatened assault or has he just taken a defensive posture?

Well, from your own post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefka and reposted by eloisel:

North Korea has repeatedly agreed to junk its nuclear weapons provided the US does three things: 1. deal directly with Pyongyang, which Washington refuses to do; 2. provide security guarantees that the US will not attack North Korea; 3. provide economic aid.

So it seems to me that it's a little of both -- one part, "Don't attack us!" and one part, "You pay bribe!"

But, threatening to protect themselves from an invasion is not the same thing as threatening to attack us without provocation. Economic and industrial aid they sorely need and I can't help but wonder why China isn't taking care of them. Could be that million man military North Korea is supporting, which is also keeping them oppressed and beyond poor. Interesting, though - they have a 100% literacy rate in adults over 17. Headvoid's wishing the Reagan propaganda machines were in play is a pretty good idea. Wonder how much propaganda is required to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination into hatred of the US.

 

[eloisel]

No axis of evil member would ever be evil enough to threaten actual assault because the USA has a NUCLEAR DETERRENT. Except when it comes to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. That's when this fact magically vanishes from the debate.

So, would you rather we nuke Iraq? What about all the civilians that would die?

 

[Kefka]

So, would you rather we nuke Iraq? What about all the civilians that would die?

Should I even respond to this? Please back the truck up and stop wrestling with strawmen. Thanks.

 

[The Question]

Both decisions were also correct.

O RLY? Sit down, kid.

 

[headvoid]

Squeeze China hard until all the happy meal toys and tamigochis drop out.

It's the only way.

The other way is to get Kim addicted to twinkies so he goes into hypoglycemic shock.