North Korean Nuclear Threat

[GregoryA]

Well today (2-10-05) the North Korean government has admitted to what everyone knew, which is that they have a nuclear arsenal. Also they stated they will not be part of any treaty making process.

Is this not a greater threat than Iraq was thought to be by the US government?

This, I believe, is going to be a huge crisis for not just the US but the north Asian region and indeed the world.
(Boy talking about stating the obvious!)

What should be are next move?

What in reality will the US do?

[Crash]

What will we do? What's our next move?
Nothing...
Our present govt. sees no profit in attacking N.K. There's no oil there, there's no way to make money there, so Bush will ignore the problem just like he ignored the warnings about 911. Hopefully it won't come to mushroom clouds from N.K. but we will do nothing until they use their weapons, then it will be too late.

[Ian]

Correction, Bush didn't go into N Korea because he knew it was too dangerous, thus thwarting his plan at a PR war.

Hmmm, if N. Korea was lying about their nuclear development, I wonder if Iran might also be lying? Thank God we have our priorities straight and the Iraqi people are finally able to vote.

[Ian]

Of course N. Korea's nuclear weapons destination would be the west coast of the US, so maybe something good will come of this after all.

[GregoryA]

Yes. Isn't it not great that we have secured freedom and liberty in Iraq by using our troops as cannon fodder while a threat to our shores now looms over us.


Our troops are tied down defending "Iraqi Freedom" while a truly renegade nation with real WMD is out there uncovered. Brilliant!

The governments constituional responsiblity is to protect us from foreigh threats not to spread democracy.
Our nation and its security comes first. Our survival comes first.

[scrap]

GregoryA said:

Yes. Isn't it not great that we have secured freedom and liberty in Iraq by using our troops as cannon fodder while a threat to our shores now looms over us.


Our troops are tied down defending "Iraqi Freedom" while a truly renegade nation with real WMD is out there uncovered. Brilliant!





The governments constituional responsiblity is to protect us from foreigh threats not to spread democracy.
Our nation and its security comes first. Our survival comes first.

I'm sure the troops will be glad to hear that they are being referred to as "cannon fodder"

I believe we have been pretty secure since 9-11 unless I missed something.

Do you have some inside scoop as to why this supposed threat is looming over us as opposed to someone else.

I don't agree with N.K. having what they say they have,
I just don't see an immediate or long term threat to us.

We are a much safer place with Bush at the wheel and the rest of the world knows it too.

[TNRighty]

If George Bush bombed North Korea tomorrow, the same people in this country who have criticized him for ignoring North Korea would be the first ones to start organizing peace rallies the second we took military action, so shut up.

The people in this country who oppose George Bush will oppose George Bush no matter what he says or does, thus I pay them no attention. Their hatred of Bush has completely overridden their capacity to see beyond political lines.

That being said, North Korea is a huge problem, and George Bush is much more likely to take action than any Democrat would be. North Korea began their nuclear buildup while Clinton was busy getting BJ's in the Oval Office. Following Bill Clinton into office is like taking over the Titanic two seconds before it hits the iceberg.

Kim Jong Il is an enemy of the USA, but he won't launch a nuclear attack against us. However, for the right price he wouldn't think twice about selling a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization.

No sovreign country on the face of the Earth will attack the USA. In our current world terrorists are doing the dirty work for regimes who harbor ill will toward the United States. They're like hired guns or mercenaries. They are the hit men for any goverment who wants to see America suffer. Terrorists operate where they are allowed to operate, and they are funded and protected by regimes who want to see harm brought upon America.

[Ian]

Who are you venting at TNR? As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats wouldn't do anything, but so far, neither has Bush. Bush is a punk who is guided by nothing but his legacy. Spreading of democracy? Perhaps Bush fan boys want American kids to die for the propagandized dream of the Iraqi people, but as for me, I'd much rather fight for the security of THIS nation. And the Iraq situation hasn't panned out yet, just wait till US troops pull out and the Iranian Mullahs (Shiite) pull in.

Neo-Cons, with their naive, out of touch ideologies are really starting to wear thin in my book. The deficit is spiraling out of control, American jobs are being sent over seas to our enemy's supporters (Need I name China?) and we haven't really made any ground on socially conservative issues. Freedom is on the march alright, right out the door.

[GregoryA]

scrap said:

I'm sure the troops will be glad to hear that they are being referred to as "cannon fodder"

I believe we have been pretty secure since 9-11 unless I missed something.

Do you have some inside scoop as to why this supposed threat is looming over us as opposed to someone else.

I don't agree with N.K. having what they say they have,
I just don't see an immediate or long term threat to us.

We are a much safer place with Bush at the wheel and the rest of the world knows it too.

Yes I'm sure our fighting personnel in Iraq would not like being referred to as "cannon fodder", but they probably hate BEING cannon fodder even more.

I think the president beileved there was a threat to our national security (WMD) and the secuity of our allies as he entered our nation into this war. It has been very clear for many monthes that the information which was used to justify this invasion was in errror.

Now that that has been concluded, like police officers who believe a residence is a crack house because of evidence and information supplied to them and then make entry to that house and find the information was all wrong, we need to leave. Our military should not be dying for liberty for Iraqis. This not the mission of our military or the constututional function of the United States government.

If you cannot see the long term threat of North Korea having nukes I just don't know where to start with you.

I think if you were an American soldier stationed along the DMZ between North Korea and South Korea you may see the problem both in the long and short term.

If you value our allies the Japanese or the Tiawanese you may see a problem.

If you live in the Pacific Northwest of the United States you may be a bit uncomfortable with the North Koreans having nukes.

Iam a conservative, but that does not mean I have to cheerlead for George Bush no matter what he does.

[moonotmo]

TNRighty said:

If George Bush bombed North Korea tomorrow, the same people in this country who have criticized him for ignoring North Korea would be the first ones to start organizing peace rallies the second we took military action, so shut up.

That's true. But there were more options than -
1. ignore NK.
2. bomb NK.
- neither of which were ideal in this situation.

You'd do well if you remembered that. So shut up.

[TNRighty]

Sorry for the angry tone of my last post. I'll try to be a little more aticulate this time.

We all know North Korea poses a serious threat, and Bush needs to focus more attention on it. The only problem I have is that Democrats seem more eager to simply criticize Bush's lack of action rather than offer any real constuctive ideas or advice on how to deal with this issue. I honestly believe Democrats are more interested in attacking Bush than they are contributing to a solution in North Korea. Its just a political football for them, an opportunity to attack Bush. That's just my opinion. When Bush does take action, whether its diplomatic or military, he'll be criticized again. Just watch.

Given the recent history of the Democratic Party, I feel that this is just another situation of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" as far as Bush goes.

In their hearts, I think Democrats understood the threat of Saddam Hussein, terrorism, and the problems with social security. Any idiot can tell you when something is broken, but it takes someone who knows what they're doing to fix it. Democrats are good at defining problems, but they're not good at solving them.

For example, during the 90's, Bill, Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Harry Reid, and many other Democrats were telling anyone who would listen that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power, that social security was headed for crisis, on and on. George Bush took action in these two areas and has received nothing but criticism and opposition from the majority of Democrats. Why do you think North Korea would be any different?

Bush needs to do something about North Korea ASAP, but I doubt whatever course of action he chooses will garner the support from anyone on the Left. They just can't bring themselves to support this president on anything. I believe politics and their hatred of Bush overrides any issue facing our country right now. Perhaps Republicans would be behaving the same way right now had Gore or Kerry won. I don't know. I think politicians on both sides of the isle need to wake up and realize they don't serve their party, they serve the people of America.

Anyways, I'll be keeping a close eye on this issue with North Korea as it is sure to become front-page stuff here very soon, and I doubt very seriously that Bush will receive any support whatsoever from the more prominent Democrats, no matter what he does.

[moonotmo]

The problem is, something was already done about NK a while ago - diplomatic relations that, in exchange for energy assistance, let America lock down NK's nuclear programme. The US would provide fuel while they built a nuclear reactor (of which the US would hold the keys) to help NK's energy crisis. In exchange, NK allowed their nuclear programme to be completely shut down, and their nuclear material locked up and put under international watch.

Bush Sr. got the programme off the ground, and Bill Clinton took over and kept it going, but the problems with it started developing half way through the Clinton Administration, when the Republicans took control in the house and started a program of spite against the president. The resulting lag in getting things done fueled NK's paranoia about US hostility, undermining the huge amount of work gone into the programme, as well as all the effort required just to get Kim to the table in the first place.

The final nail in the coffin came when Bush Jr. took power and withdrew from the deal. Tearing up international treaties relating to nuclear arms development, his own father sent a public memo to him, saying "Washington should re-engage with North Korea because not to do so would seriously undermine the current government in South Korea and hurt United States security interests in North Asia."). With the deal in shreads, Kim was more motivated than ever to put his previously abandoned programme online and into overdrive. Over a decade of work by two presidents was completely undermined because a complete blabbering idiot of a man decided that waving his penis around was more important than national security, and somehow became president himself.

I understand there are times when people hate Bush no matter what he does, but he has to do something quite spectacular about this issue to earn any respect back from me.

[Ian]

So then the Democrat-controlled Congress was responsible for 9/11, not Bush?!

And why do I get the feeling that Bush didn't lose any respect from you on this issue??

[moonotmo]

Ian said:

So then the Democrat-controlled Congress was responsible for 9/11, not Bush?!

Please show me how I gave even the slightest suggestion or implication of that in my post.

And why do I get the feeling that Bush didn't lose any respect from you on this issue??

Put it this way: if it were possible to put a value on how much respect you have for someone, the respect I have for Bush would be a very negative number.

[Ian]

moonotmo said:

Please show me how I gave even the slightest suggestion or implication of that in my post.

"Bill Clinton took over and kept it going, but the problems with it started developing half way through the Clinton Administration, when the Republicans took control in the house and started a program of spite against the president."

I just figured that since you believe that Clinton wasn't responsible for what happened under his watch because the big, bad Republicans controlled the congress, you, in your Solomon-like fairness, would allow Bush the same liberty.

Put it this way: if it were possible to put a value on how much respect you have for someone, the respect I have for Bush would be a very negative number.

Ah, one thing we agree on. I don't care for Bush either, albeit for slightly different reasons.