"declaration of war"

[Akira 0]

N. Korea Talkin' Big

One thing to notice is that the IAEA itself has condemned N. Korea, and the Agency itself could possibly bring the matter to the UN Security Council. Then the UN would decide if sanctions are necessary or not (sanctions against an already dirt poor country?).

But in their little tirade the N. Koreans are threatening the US if sanctions are imposed, when the US has already stated it has no intention of attacking, and will resolve the crisis diplomatically. Mis-placed threat? Is N. Korea trying to poke the US into doing something? What are Pyongyang intentions for doing so, for trying to escalate the crisis?

Its really up to S. Korea and China now...

[Necromancer- 0]

N-Korea really has a unlogical point of view. I seriously dont see how N-Korea would get better off.

If N-Korea even fires one missile at S-Korea or at the US forces stationed in S-Korea.... N-Korea will be immediately obliterated.

[Akira 0]

I don't think N. Korea will be "obliterated", either conventionally or in a nuclear attack. The country is too difficult terrain-wise and too close to China. And S. Korea would throw a fit.

But you are right in that I don't see how N. Korea could possible benefit from this, and their defiance is clearly illogical, probably brought about with the US being busy with Iraq.

[Wobble 1]

(sanctions against an already dirt poor country?)

granted it seems illogical to sanction a country that cant even afford to wipe its own ass.. but whats the alternative? military force? attack a country thats dirt poor!?

the problem is you have to do SOMETHING or every 3rd world barren turd hole would realize "hey.. we are "poor" so we can get away with stuff"

its like letting a hobo steal your car just because hes poor.. not gonna fly..

sometimes there is no "right way" but only the lesser evil..

[Wobble 1]

but proably the best way to deal with it would be to send in Mr Johnson

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,12:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think N. Korea will be "obliterated", either conventionally or in a nuclear attack. The country is too difficult terrain-wise and too close to China. And S. Korea would throw a fit.

But you are right in that I don't see how N. Korea could possible benefit from this, and their defiance is clearly illogical, probably brought about with the US being busy with Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what Korea said is that it must reactivate it's nuclear program after the US said it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons and after the US is threatening war to seemingly harmless nations to it. They say they have a right to protect themselves. And despite our egoes, they do. They are still people who want to have a future, they will have to get armed to get respected and treated as well as some other Nuclear nations.

They also have a right to call sanctions war, since having sanctions there will be like or worse than war, why not fight for your life instead of starving, it's the logical thing to do.

EDIT: South Korea, I wonder whos side it will be on if anything goes wrong.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,10:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: South Korea, I wonder whos side it will be on if anything goes wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

There is no way South Korea is going to side with anyone other then the U.S. Despite the current anti-American sentiment, the South Koreans appreciate the effect that having U.S. troops in their country provides.

If President Bush announced next week that we were fully withdrawing our troops from the penninsula there would be a HUGE protest from the South Korean government.

And despite all the political posturing as of late, I seriously doubt that North Korea is going to try to cause any turmoil in the region. They may have a huge army, but much like the Chinese forces of the mid 20th century, they have barbaric notions of logistics. They would not be able to maintain a full front press into South Korea while retaining the ability to garrision at home (if you think Kim Jong-il would trust China not to invade from the North while he's weakend you're out of your mind).

I also cannot seriously condsider the notion that he would up and launch a nuke at South Korea, or Japan. He would with out a doubt assure the complete and utter destruction of his government.

We'll have to see if he says he's going to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty like he said he was going to do in '93. Of course you all remember he renegged on that on the 90th day.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,12:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think N. Korea will be "obliterated", either conventionally or in a nuclear attack. The country is too difficult terrain-wise and too close to China. And S. Korea would throw a fit.

But you are right in that I don't see how N. Korea could possible benefit from this, and their defiance is clearly illogical, probably brought about with the US being busy with Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, what Korea said is that it must reactivate it's nuclear program after the US said it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons and after the US is threatening war to seemingly harmless nations to it. They say they have a right to protect themselves. And despite our egoes, they do. They are still people who want to have a future, they will have to get armed to get respected and treated as well as some other Nuclear nations.

They also have a right to call sanctions war, since having sanctions there will be like or worse than war, why not fight for your life instead of starving, it's the logical thing to do.

EDIT: South Korea, I wonder whos side it will be on if anything goes wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

But that is the catch. The people are already starving while the fat corrupt Communist leadership live high on the hog. What would sanctions do? They are already extremely poor and under-developed.

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation.

The US has ALWAYS reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in any case in which it forces (or those of allies) come under attack by WMD. This has been so since the beginning of the nuclear age, and is aimed at people who would use those WMD's in any war, so they think twice (*cough*Saddam*cough*). People need to get off of that little defensive doctirine. It has NEVER been first strike.

But N. Korea is one of the largest exporters of arms to rogue and terroristic states, and with this new development of making nuclear weapons, would YOU feel safe knowing those two facts? What happens if one of these bombs gets in "undesirable" hands? Nuclear weapons don't get respect. Hell the US has a ton of em...where's the respect? They have one of the largest militarys in the world and a buddy with probably THE largest. Where are they not "armed"?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that is the catch. The people are already starving while the fat corrupt Communist leadership live high on the hog. What would sanctions do? They are already extremely poor and under-developed.<span id='postcolor'>

It will get much worse for them. There is almost always something worse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation. <span id='postcolor'> Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But N. Korea is one of the largest exporters of arms to rogue and terroristic states, and with this new development of making nuclear weapons, would YOU feel safe knowing those two facts?<span id='postcolor'> What can I say, I would, I would not. First and foremost, I get into flamewars in the forum and some nice confrontations in real life, but internationally I would know other peoples lives are at stake so I would smarten up if I was Bush boy.

What you are basically saying is, damage control must be our first priority, while international affairs-> let's do more damage.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that is the catch. The people are already starving while the fat corrupt Communist leadership live high on the hog. What would sanctions do? They are already extremely poor and under-developed.<span id='postcolor'>

It will get much worse for them. There is almost always something worse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation. <span id='postcolor'> Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But N. Korea is one of the largest exporters of arms to rogue and terroristic states, and with this new development of making nuclear weapons, would YOU feel safe knowing those two facts?<span id='postcolor'> What can I say, I would, I would not. First and foremost, I get into flamewars in the forum and some nice confrontations in real life, but internationally I would know other peoples lives are at stake so I would smarten up if I was Bush boy.

What you are basically saying is, damage control must be our first priority, while international affairs-> let's do more damage.<span id='postcolor'>

First of I don't know when this descended into a "flame war" but your condescending and "holier than thou" attitude is out of place here and borders on immaturity. I am not your boy, or Bush boy or anybodies boy. If you can't take opposing view points, then you are in the wrong arena buddy. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me wrong nor does it make me right.

Second off, don't tell me to "smarten up." I know damn good and well other people's lives are at stake. If you would smarten up you would know that you can't be paralyzed into inaction.

Third, I enjoy being devil's advocate and bringing up different possibilites or options or views, so if you have a problem with that and are unable to post in a civil uninsulting way, please refrain so people that can can have a mature discussion/debate.

And please explain to us what exactly is being damaged with this crisis in N. Korea? Especially when the US has already allowed others to take the diplomatic lead?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But that is the catch. The people are already starving while the fat corrupt Communist leadership live high on the hog. What would sanctions do? They are already extremely poor and under-developed.<span id='postcolor'>

It will get much worse for them. There is almost always something worse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation. <span id='postcolor'> Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.<span id='postcolor'>

Easy to say.

But sanctions would do nothing to deter N. Korea. Would most likely lead them to further advance their arms program. So if sanctions don't work and armed conflict is out. What is left?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation.

Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.

<span id='postcolor'>

And your point?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation.

Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.

<span id='postcolor'>

And your point?<span id='postcolor'>

Is very illusive to you.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 07 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,158)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And I have absolutely no problem with countries "defending themselves," and the leadership would be remiss if they didn't. But from what? The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. It even handed the reigns to S. Korea and China and said would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with any S. Korean proposal to defuse the situation.

Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.

<span id='postcolor'>

And your point?<span id='postcolor'>

Is very illusive to you. <span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for your insightful and brilliant commentary.

If you can't have a mature discussion please refrain from posting in here as I said before, so that others can.

[bn880 5]

Look, I made my point. You take some responsibility in a debate, that you are capable of reasoning some points out.

EDIT: here is what else i could have said if I did not have a sense of humor: The point is stated above.

[bn880 5]

Did I mention that you screwed up on quoting that? It is missing some sets of quotes.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look, I made my point. You take some responsibility in a debate, that you are capable of reasoning some points out.

EDIT: here is what else i could have said if I did not have a sense of humor: The point is stated above. <span id='postcolor'>

If your "illusive" point was that N. Korea said that it won't attack anyone so its ok to go ahead and sell nuclear weapons and other arms to rogue states and terroristic nations, then your "ostrich head in the sand" technique is going to get more people killed than saved.

In many US debates you have said governments take responsibility for their actions. So if hypothetically a bomb DOES get sold and detonated...North Korea is still responsible is it not? Or is there a double standard?

If your "international foreign policy" is to not act until something happens, you are not as keen to save lives as you so claim.

[bn880 5]

Okay I have to spell it out. Shit this is a waste of time. (this as in right now, to spell it out)

North Korea is worried about what? The U.S.

Your reply

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US has already said publically IT WILL NOT ATTACK N. KOREA. <span id='postcolor'>

I counter

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, and N. Korea has not said they will attack ANYONE. so.. hmm.<span id='postcolor'>

Bot say they WILL NOT ATTACK ONE ANOTHER (as you would yell out). So why is Korea the big threat and your warmongering US not, with Korea having far less of a military strength.

[Akira 0]

Jesus do I have to spell out my view as well. I have stated it quiet clearly, and right above your last post. Try reading it. THAT is why it is viewed a threat.

And the US has not threatened N. Korea in any way. N. Korea on the other hand has threatened the US if sanctions were imposed, though that would be a UN action, not US action.

I understand quiet clearly your claims. I assume you quiet clearly understand mine. Apparently neither of us is listening though.

PS...I didn't "yell out." I emphasized.

PPS....all I was asking was if sanctions are useless and military force ruled out as well. What is left?

Certainly didn't ask for some flame war...

[Necromancer- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PPS....all I was asking was if sanctions are useless and military force ruled out as well. What is left?<span id='postcolor'>

not much.

[FSPilot 0]

Ok, let's look at the other side of the sanction-shotgun for a second here.  If sanctions would have no major effect on N. Korea, why do they call it an act of war?

I think the world should be more concerned about this.  It's not like the U.S. is trying to stop EVERY country from getting nuclear weapons, just the violent 3rd world dictatorships who we're afraid will try to use them against not just us, but everyone.  And by use them against us I mean both USE and threaten to use.  These guys can't get leverage like this.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jesus do I have to spell out my view as well. I have stated it quiet clearly, and right above your last post. Try reading it. THAT is why it is viewed a threat.

And the US has not threatened N. Korea in any way. N. Korea on the other hand has threatened the US if sanctions were imposed, though that would be a UN action, not US action.

I understand quiet clearly your claims. I assume you quiet clearly understand mine. Apparently neither of us is listening though.

PS...I didn't "yell out." I emphasized.

PPS....all I was asking was if sanctions are useless and military force ruled out as well. What is left?

Certainly didn't ask for some flame war...<span id='postcolor'>

I did not say I do not understand your view.

N K has not threteaned the U.S. when it decided to cancel it's agreement and proceed with the Nuclear program. As a matter of fact NK has not threatened war under current conditions, while the U.S. is like a mad cow so you never know.

PS: quite, not quiet...

[ralphwiggum 6]

man, again and again, same topic....

N Korea has been a habitual empty-threat makers. in international politics arena, they are well known to make empty threats to gain something. and i see current action as one of them.

but N Korea has not given up its idea of "reclaiming S Korea from imperialist's hands". they always cause some battle(naval battles). last time(during world cup) it left 4 S Korean navy soldiers dead, more wounded. it's been assumed that N Korea lost all of its ppl too.(they always loose..tsk tsk tsk..)

so they are certainly not shying away from using military force. that's why world should get involved. if it weren't for current diplomatic ties of Japan, S Korea, Russia and China, N Korea would be a bit bolder.

I'm glad that Bush is taking diplomatic approach, although i don't think we should let N Korea get off the hook this time.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,04:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm glad that Bush is taking diplomatic approach, although i don't think we should let N Korea get off the hook this time.<span id='postcolor'>

Why is that?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Sanctions mean a war and the war knows no mercy,"<span id='postcolor'>

That's what NK said the other day. And what does the Bush administration do? Reversed their earlier statements and said that they would open a diplomatic dialogue. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it is very good, I just have a hard time understanding it. NK has an active nuclear program and makes threats against the US. They get the nice diplomatic treatement.

Iraq hasn't threatened the US and there is no evidence of a nuclear program. Yet they will face war.

Am I the only one confused about this?

[ralphwiggum 6]

no.

just that those who criticized Bush administration's reaction to NK were doing it for the sake of criticizing.

this is a good outcome. diplomatic solutions are given priority. what's wrong with that?

if that is wrong since Bush wants to attack Iraq, then i guess it's only right that US attack NK, right? at least they are applying same criteria.

if US talk diplomatically with NK but use force on saddam, that is not good since there is no consistency, albeit NK is not under US attack., right?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq hasn't threatened the US and there is no evidence of a nuclear program. Yet they will face war.

Am I the only one confused about this? <span id='postcolor'>

No

Is it possible NK is doing this to prove just such a point? Make life more difficult for the U.S.?