And What About North Korea?

[ketoprak]

OK, everybody is talking about Iraq, a country that certainly have one or two bad weapons, but that's not a real threat.

And what about North Korea? People are just starving there, their leader is a psychotic, and they have thousands of mass destruction weapons. I read in my favorite newspaper that an official there claimed that "Pyongyang had the capacity to strike US targets anywhere in the world". And it's probably true. If that's not a real threat?

Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country.

I guess the reason is that being a real threat it's not possible to attack North Korea. They'd have to use the diplomatic way, and Bush the cow-boy don't understand diplomacy!


(edited grammar)

[MagicNakor]

The "diplomatic" tactics employed for Iraq and North Korea are different because of one reason.

North Korea has nuclear weapons.

[jetje]

I say "just fry them" - No not really. Diplomatics, diplomatics and relax. War is no solution, just start stimulating their economics. Happy people don't want war B)

don't think it the a-bomb, it's the oil B)

[kAb]

Originally posted by ketoprak@13 February 2003 - 12:56
OK, everybody is talking about Iraq, a country that certainly have one or two bad weapons, but that's not a real threat.

And what about North Korea? People are just starving there, their leader is a psychotic, and they have thousands of mass destruction weapons. I read in my favorite newspaper that an official there claimed that "Pyongyang had the capacity to strike US targets anywhere in the world". And it's probably true. If that's not a real threat?

Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country.

I guess the reason is that being a real threat it's not possible to attack North Korea. They'd have to use the diplomatic way, and Bush the cow-boy don't understand diplomacy!


(edited grammar)

not necessarily, it is believed that he has nukes that can reach the west coast of the U.S... not anywhere in the world

[El_Jefe]

Well, the major difference is that North Korea is on the borders of two out of the three largest nuclear powers in the world, the 2nd largest economy in Japan, and two of the fastest growing economies in South Korea and China.

Plus, considering the history of the area, it is also somewhat of a powder keg. So I think it's very unlikely that the use of force is an option in this particular case.

[dingoBaby]

N. Korea is a scary situation. Nukes and the fifth largest armed force in the world. They may not be able to strike US targets anywhere in the world (as they claim) but they could do serious harm in their own backyard. (Seoul, Tokoyo, Manilla, etc).

[Logan-Grimnar]

Seoul you say??
I'm living in Seoul as we speak...
Sure they might strike us...but with a nuke? I doubt it...the nuke will harm them too...
Tokyo in the other hand might be targeted..which is the problem...Bush gave the Japanese the authority to strik back with a nuke if they are hit with one...causing US South Koreans harm as well..

Their Nukes can reach U.S. and that's the reason why the U.S. should be afraid of them, though they don't seem to be planning opn striking U.S. right now at the moment.

I don't even think Bush should go to war againt Iraq, he should try to solve it by talking more instead of using force all the time...geeze...the Bush family loves war...

[MagicNakor]

Of course he does. He wants to prove to the world that Daddy really was a good President.

[maximboy99]

"Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country."

Thats just wrong on every point. First of all Clinton has a horrible foreign policy record, especially in North Korea. (Note: I dont think he was a bad president. I think domestically he was a great president, he brought unity on important issues like the economy and job creation) However, all he did was buy off North Korea by promising aid. This aid was only to be given as long as North Korea stopped building nuclear weapons. Guess what? They broke their side of the deal. Now America *must* stop giving them free aid (IE food because they cannot feed themselves), or else what is the point of any treaty? Incase you were confused, this is not the United States of free handouts to military dictatorships.

So why should we not focus on North Korea? Because as we speak food shortages are hurting the North's power. Its obvious that we cannot just resume aid (I mean come on, they ARE building nuclear weapons and agreed not to). So what to do? Wait them out, we lose nothing by waiting for Iraq to be resolved. The nuclear byproducts from North Korea's nuclear reactors will not be usable for another 3 months, and weapons unlikely to be created for atleast 6. We also know North Korea will not launch an unprovoked attack ( however, what is a provocation is in question. NK claims UN sanctions or any bombing is an act of war. Which presumably means, at the very worst they will use their nukes, or at the very least invade SK. Which is exactly my point for not threatening them, not yet anyway). This leaves the United States with two feasible options. 1. Buy time by not giving into the demands of NK (IE food) and let regional allies like China, Russia, and Japan commense talks. 2. Invade Iraq now, plan military action for NK after Iraq is dealt with.

Personally I support option 1. War with North Korea has a high probability of nuclear war, but it absolutely DOES mean millions of dead people, many innocent. Why cant big bad China handle this? What about Russia helping? Think of it this way: if Canada was taken over by a military dictatorship and began threatening the region with nuclear war, do you think the US would ask China to come over and take care of this problem? I'm not saying the US shouldn't be part of the solution either. The US has an important peace keeping role in the world. This is getting me off topic.

Now to Iraq. Ok, what dont you understand about war with Iraq? For 12 years Iraq has violated a PEACE TREATY WITH THE UN. See, when the US (and allies) defeated Iraq, the UN and some neighboring arab countries begged us not to ride into Baghdad. Instead they favored signing a peace treaty, which included disarming WMD within 15 days of signing. Now this was clearly worded to say that Iraq must SHOW compliance. Anyone who thinks Iraq IS complying has their head in the sand. Im not going to go into this too deeply, except that a second UN resolution was passed, and Saddam is still playing games. If you dont agree with me, than I guess you dont trust our government. That disheartens me quite a bit.

So where does this lead us? I guess to war. The UN passes resolutions which threaten dire consequences for failing to comply. Yet, compliance involved leading us to ANY violations. Saddam has not done that. He believes the UN wont inforce its resolutions. He's right, only the US will. Look its as simple as this: If we do not stop Sadam while he is weak, he will rebuild, he will aid anti-american sentiment (including terrorists). In essense, by saying no to war, you are saying yes to breaking international laws and treaties. It really couldnt be more clear cut.

Summary: Stopping Iraq now means only one nuclear rogue nation a year from now, not two. Waiting a few months (until Iraq is dealt with) does not significantly affect American safety. In fact, it hurts North Korea to wait. Bush is doing the right thing by waiting North Korea out a bit, giving in now to NK's demands will only feed kim chong's ambitions.

[jetje]

If they start an attack on Iraq
N-korea will shoot you in the back.....

they won't wait. Why are there so many people in favor of a war. Just because it looks that it is far from their home?????