Related Information to USA vs North Korea

USA vs North Korea - Page 17

Arvhic, China is the wild card in this situation but it hasn't done anything about it and I personally think they will remain quiet, maybe I am wrong but I would not count on them for nothing.

Yesterday I heard on the news that President Bush ruled out an invasion to N. Korea and I would like to know from my American friends here on the forum, what;s the reason of such decision. Pres. Bush going to Iraq was a proof in itself that he does not care really what other people/countries say whether he is right or not, he has a mind of his own so definitely "image" is not an issue here or criticism. So what's up with that?

Korea North USA

Arvhic, your convenient selective memory is unbelievable to me. Iraq, Iran, and Korea all have, or had, idiot dictators. They all have, or had, WMDs. Have you conveniently forgotten the tons of warheads our armed forces dug out of the sand in Iraq? Have you forgotten the thousands of Kurds that were gassed where they stood by Saddam? And all three dictators verbally threatened their neighbors and the world, so why do you class Iraq and Iran as illegitimate disasters and sit on the fence with Korea? Because Israel took out Iraq's nuclear? Because Iran hasn't tested theirs yet?

Quoting Arvhic

My Gosh will you people ever get off the oil kick? Are we taking Iraq's oil? Did we take Kuwait's oil? The battle was to keep oil free-flowing to the world.

George Bush made it painfully clear yesterday that he is not going after Korea one-on-one in any way. I could care less what the world thinks when it comes to controlling nukes and dictators, but if the US goes after Korea alone George Bush will once again be the whipping boy. It doesn't matter what he does, in the eye of the liberal he will always be wrong. You want to know something before all the other liberals figure it out? George Bush can't run for president again. Why is so much time and energy being spent to make him look bad? In two years he'll be gone!

Message Edited! Mouse, I just added the word "Gosh" to replace the word "God".

Edited: LDS_forever on 13th Oct, 2006 - 5:53am

USA vs North Korea History & Civil Business Politics

There are a whole bunch of reasons. One is probably that no matter what he has tried, the liberal Republicans and Democrats have stood in his way, second guessed him, and tried to make him stumble.

Now, they have made so much noise about Iraq, that there is no way that he can get funding to do anything about North Korea.

Another reason is surely that China would object, and stand in the way, of the US doing anything major in the region.

We might as well accept the fact that North Korea will have a nuclear weapon in the near future, and will likely sell it to someone, who will use it.

The USA cannot stop it, and if it tried in any way to do so, the same tired old objections would be made, claiming that the US is just trying to extend its "Empire", that it is illegitimate, that there was no "provocation", etc. After all, haven't they, including quite a few members of this forum, claimed that "preemption" is completely immoral and illegitimate as a reason for war? So, in order to appease all those forces, nothing can be done until someone sets off a North Korean nuclear weapon.

My bet is that it will be set off in Washington, D.C. Maybe even two or three of them along the Eastern seaboard.

More living in interesting times.

Page 17 Korea North USA

Well I've never been called a pacifist before - but there's always a first time. Thanks Mousetrails! However, before giving you "a course" I ask that you consider history before jumping into bombing North Korea.

Let me ask you a question: What has military aggression ever delivered lately? History shows that unless you go in and totally destroy your enemies then you will never succeed. Afgahnistan was a disaster for the Soviets and if we give it enough time you will see that it is a disaster for the USA as well. Iraq will also go this way - probably being carved up as separate states based on ethnicity and religion (and then being at war with eachother). As for Lebanon, the Hezbollah are gaining more and more support every day and it is just a matter of time before the whole country is handed over to the Hezbollah, just like Hamas are now the voice of the Palestinians. Take it back even further and look at the first world war. By not finishing off the Germans in WW1 they came back stronger than ever - and then it took a second world war to bring them back in check (and at a what a massive loss of human life!). In all these examples history shows that aggression has merely served to polarize the populations of those countries into a stronger and stronger resistance, and then come back and bite you at a later stage.

In my opinion a unilateral preemptive military strike by the USA against North Korea will be the worst thing possible for America in the long run. Besides, what makes the USA the captain of the world anyway? What right do they have to bully their way around the world implementing regime change whenever they feel like it? North Korea is China's, Japan's and South Korea's problem. Sure the USA has a lot of interests in S'Korea but bombing the proverbial out of N'Korea is not the answer (at least not yet anyway) and will only make Japan and S'Korea a bigger target.

I am NOT a pacifist my any means but I do not believe that diplomacy is dead in regards to how N'Korea is to be handled. A strong UN resolution is needed that has the backing of all of the Security Council. Sure the US will have to lobby the Chinese and the Russians pretty hard to get the right resolution, but it must be done. Also a strict deadline needs to be enforced at which point China should stop supplying aid to N'Korea.

So for all the fascists out there here are two plans that I suggest:

PLAN A
1. Get a strong UN resolution (forcing NK to stop all nuclear weapons development and to allow the IAEA back into the country, etc) with the backing of the all Security Council members, and with the Chinese agreeing to cease all aid if the N'Koreans do not comply.
2. Wait for the deadline. If they comply, great. If not, get another UN resolution to authorize the use of military force with another deadline.
3. Wait for 2nd deadline. If they comply, great. If not then let the military response be an action of all countries (preferably China, but mostly likely USA). Better still, the Americans should use their advanced covert technology to kill Kim Jong Il and not half the NK population (as has been suggested by other forum members).

PLAN B
1. USA to invest heavily in its missile defence shield.
2. Let the N'Koreans continue with the nuclear program until they eventual nuke somebody (probably Japan), or until the sell their technology and/or nukes to the Iranians - who then in turn nuke Israel.
3. USA to nuke the hell out of N'Korea (and Iran if necessary) and kill millions of people. Heck, why not just nuke all non-whites and be done with it!

Obviously Plan B is ridiculous but sometimes I feel that that is what a lot of people would like to see done. Violence begets violence, and is not the answer (neither is sarcasm, but I hope I made my point). The United Nations was set up by a lot smarter people than us lot sitting here writing our point of view from the comfort of our soft chairs. The League of Nations had problems that were resolved by the UN, and in a lot of cases the UN has been very effective (look at Balkans War for example). If the US wants to continue going around with their preemptive unilateral aggression then they will ultimately become no better than the dictators that they are removing.

As John Lennon said, "Give peace a chance". If all else fails - then you've got nothing to lose.

Korea North USA

Bush has not backed down to appease liberals, thats not even possible. Has Bush yet backed down when liberals have told him he was out of his mind and just plan wrong and illegal in his dealings? Why would he listen now? The fact is that for once, Bush is looking at something intelligently. You don't attack a country that can and will put up a very strong fight, when you are occupying two other countries. It has nothing to do with liberals or oil or any other minor reason for backing down, it just makes sense. We are slowly losing ground in Iraq according to the Presidents Joint Chiefs, so why would we, at this point in time, attack a third country when we can't tidy up loose ends elsewhere?

Not to mention that our troops are running thin. They would have to initiate a draft just in order to get enough troops. If that happened, you would see such an outcry of protest as you have never seen! Can you imagine a draft to send people to war with yet a third country? No, the outcome of a war with North Korea would require a staggering lose of life, I hope Bush sticks to avoiding war.

USA vs North Korea

Tonester Post ID:98299

When the United States declared war on Germany and Japan in the 2nd WW we had two goals. We destroyed the infrastructure of both countries. Then we spent years and millions rebuilding both countries and they both have health and wealth to this day. In the case of Korea and Vietnam the pacifist stepped in and we fought long bloody wars for nothing. So you are right. You must totally destroy the ability to resist before spending money to rebuild.
Tonester

If the US had not fought Germany and Japan you would probably not be speaking English today.
Tonester

Is there something you don't understand about them wanting to murder the non-muslim world including you? And Hamas is really doing great things in Palestine aren't they? They can't even pay the help, much less help anybody else.
( PLAN A ) sounds familiar. Isn't that the pathway President Bush followed before invading Iraq?
United Nations? Aren't they the people that moved out of Iraq overnight when they were bombed. Aren't they the gutless wonders that go in and "keep" peace after the fighting is over? Aren't they the people that stand up strongly after the fact and say, shoulda, woulda, coulda? Give me a break.
Tonester

Has it ever crossed your mind what the US could do with our power if we chose to? We could threaten the world with nukes and rule the world overnight. Instead we spend time and money trying to do the right thing bringing peace to a world that is bound and determined not to be peaceful. And what do we get for our blood and time? Sniping, back stabbing, discontent. No......I have no idea why we continue to try.

USA North Korea - Page 17

Kon said:

I think you hit right on the nail. It seems to be that Pres. Bush decided not to attack N. Korea for the simple reason that 1) He knows they have nukes 2) He is not sure about China 3) I do not think that he has enough men to send there anyway having soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq at this present time.

USA North Korea Politics Business Civil & History - Page 17

LDS, I think China is key in this dispute. They are the only ally of North Korea and prop up NK's economy. I am not sure why China doesn't clamp down on NK. I could hazard a guess and say that a) They would be making a lot of money through interests in NK; They are reluctant to cave into US demands, especially because the US has historically backed Taiwan, and, China is jockeying for emergence as a superpower. It wants to be seen as its own regional policeman.

Offtopic but, Mousetrails, Iran does not have a dictator, he is a popularly elected leader. Iraq had an idiot dictator, but he was a close ally of the US until he threatened US interests in Kuwait. Also, when Saddam gassed the Kurds, it was Donald Rumsfeld who leapt to Saddam's defence, blaming the Iranians. There's a bit of selective memory for you.

North Korea's dictator is far worse than Saddam, so it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask why Bush would attack one country and not the other, especially as we know NK has WMDs

Can I pose this question: If North Korea was blessed with Iraq's oil reserves (if you could call it a blessing) and Iraq's main export was asparagus, who would Bush have attacked?

If you want to specifically talk about oil or Iraq there is another forum for that. On that thread you can also reveal to the world where Saddam's WMDs are, I know a few of world leaders who would love to find them.

I don't agree with this at all. I don't accept the US, or any superpower, goes around out of the goodness of its heart to "create peace". Superpowers generally act in their "national interest", often to secure their own power. If it was in the US national interest to invade North Korea, weighed up against other current interests, I have no doubt whatsoever Bush would sacrifice US troops tomorrow. This doesn't make Bush evil, it makes him human. Power corrupts. I agree with Konq that the decision not too invade NK is partly because of other engagements. But the threat of NK has been around for ages and there was never a serious bid by the Bush Administration to deal with it. Questions have to be asked why, because it hardly took any convincing to invade resource rich Iraq, a humanitarian disaster which has cost in excess of 600,000 lives.

I also don't but this nonsense that Bush and his mates are scared of how they will be viewed by the left! In fact, I would think invading NK would be a far easier proposition to convince Congress than Iraq, which in essence wasn't threatening anyone but itself at the time of the invasion.

Message Edited! Persephone: Please use the Offtopic Tags so that the Thread maintains the same subject matter and does not develop into another Topic.