North Korea has nukes. :(

[Amskeptic]

I also feel that Kim has surrendered the NK nation's right voluntarily by testing this nuke.

If we allow Kim to keep his newest toy, and he uses it against South Korea or Japan, nobody will ever believe us again.

I do not understand your logic here.
Why does testing surrender his right? All of the nuclear nations have tested their weaponry. We, in fact, refused to sign the nuclear test freeze that was pushed by the nuclear nations. We refused to disarm. We demanded to develop the neutron bomb, and are working still on EMF bombs, and we are forging ahead with spaced-based weaponry. So can North Korea if it so chooses. We have not honored nuclear technology non-proliferation treaties because our merchants of death lobbied hard against limiting their access to world markets, this is also true for French and German contractors. If we don't follow the damn rules we helped write. . . . .

If we "allow" him? It is not our call to interfere with his activities on his own soil. We cannot presume that he is going to use this bomb for offense. Welcome to the new world. It is a mess that demands that we practice a little humility. Cuz guess what? We ARE hostage to other members of the world family. We could have used our carefully nurtured leadership and prestige and huge financial strength and American spirit to counter Kim with a unified world response. . . . . but Bush blew our cachet on Saddam. . . .

Our botched control of nuclear materials, particularly the post-Soviet satellite states, has been a pox on our reputation. OK. We have problems now. We can still salvage our world standing, but we have GOT to get rid of these incompetent self-serving clueless idiots in our Executive Branch.
We need less Tough Guy and more Nuance.
Colin

[vdubyah73]

Put the whole fuckin' world on notice. If we see one ballistic missle launched in agression we will nuke the agressor back to the stone age. The other nuclear nations will sit and watch without doing anything except maybe the French who will whine. Everybody else will secretly be glad we made such a declaration. It's called nuclear deterence. It sucks, it's worked for 60 years. As Winston Churchill once said, paraphrasing here, " the Ameicans always do the right thing, they try everything else first, but they always do the right thing." .

Colin, Kim Ill has stated that he will help terrorist groups procure nukes, and that he will gladly use them. Also by your same logic I don't understand your stance on gun control.


How did we botch the control of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal? Were we supposed to invade and take control of their weapons?

You can't negotiate with terrorists that send their children to blow themselves up killing as many civilians as possible as well. Neville Chamberlain negotiaterd with the Nazi's for a few years didn't he? Negotiating with despots and fanatics only maybe buys a little time while both sides arm themselves. Case in point, Negotiating with North Korea to avoid another nuclear nation. Didn't work did it. Try negotiating with a crack head that just broke into your house at 3 am. Then try negotiating with said crack head while pointing a good sized smoking hand gun at him. see which one works better. It's the human condition not everybody is reasonable and peace loving.
Gotta go to work now.


Bill

[DurocShark]

Bill got my argument almost word-for-word (except for waiting).

I really think a lot of the people arguing for ignoring NK (not you Colin, I've read your posts over the years) can't see the real issue because they're so full of hate and fear of the current administration.

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but this issue is beyond partisan politics. Beyond stupid presidents. Beyond Haliburton, Iraq, Condoleezza's gapped teeth, and Dick's bald pate.

Waiting until he launches? That's like the police refusing to protect a woman who's been threatened and stalked by her ex husband until he hurts her. Or kills her.

[steve74baywin]

yep, the best way to control a population, as all the major religions have done for millenia, is to instill fear, and then offer yourself as the solution or protector. Its old school.

You got that right bro.

All, help me on this...
I'm one who often sees how those in control have caused most of this for they're gain... I don't know much about North Korea, what could our criminal element of our government done to get Kim to this state where some think he is just wanting to shoot a nuke at Japan or SK to cause us to get involved?
Bush and co must have done something.

Oops, sorry if this don't apply, I posted it without knowing there was page 2 full of good stuff.

[steve74baywin]

I guess as far as whether NK should have Nukes or if we should invade a country for developing Nukes my stand is this, who are we to decide? In all honestly we should have already proven ourselves and our form of government unworthy of having Nukes.... For one as noted earlier, we are the only country to have used nukes, 2) We are now like Germany, invading countries that did nothing to us. Seriously, us and England need to have someone telling us what we can and can't do. 3) We didn't obey the UN 4) We are going against torture rules we helped create,,also going against pre-emptive strike rules we also helped to create. 5) We are getting further from having the freedom we claim we want to give others...
I think stuff like this NK scare is just another way to keep everyones eyes off of the fact that the biggest problem we have right now is the criminal cabal that has taken over our country, the Bush Junta.

[hambone]

Meanwhile, in North Korea, a family goes hungry......................

[DurocShark]

We are now like Germany, invading countries that did nothing to us.

Again, you're comparing Iraq to NK. There's no comparison at all. Bush used bullshit excuses to invade Iraq. NK has already handed the world a reason to invade on a silver platter.

Invasion of Afghanistan was warranted, if we had accomplished our objectives: Elimination of Al Queda.

Invasion of Iraq was unwarranted: Bush et al made up reasons to do what he wanted to do anyway. But I think the end results, once we clean up the mess we've made over there, will be good. Though I'd not support it if it happened again.

Invasion of NK is warranted: But maybe not invasion! We didn't invade Japan in WWII to get them to surrender! In fact, after the documents released in 95 it was shown that the Japanese were ready to surrender long before the bomb drops. They were waiting for guarantees that the Emperor would not be removed. But the US kept insisting on "Unconditional Surrender".

What's funny is we still allowed the Emperor to remain. Go figger.

I just don't see why we can't do the same thing. Destroy their aircraft and military vessels then blockade them.

[steve74baywin]

Duroshark,,,It's that whole mindset that we should, must, and the only option is,,,,force to get them to do what we figure is right and correct. Where does this come from? I think one needs to step back and evaluate where this thinking has come from, and if there are other options....
There maybe were reasons we didn't just take out the leader of Japan back then,,,,,,maybe because it isn't and wasn't right? We are not GOD incarnate, we can not be the judge, jury, and excecutioner,,,,,especially when we only see perhaps what they want us to see......, and once again,, these countries ought to be doing what they are doing,,, cause the US might conjure up lies and invade them too someday....

[DurocShark]

"Must" comes from a tin pot dictator having the ability to kill thousands and thousands of people with the press of a button.

Few people got upset when India and Pakistan tested their nukes. Why? Because they're (relatively) responsible governments and good world citizens. And everybody knows they'd just use 'em on each other over the stupid Kashmir. ;)

[Velokid1]

I really think a lot of the people arguing for ignoring NK (not you Colin, I've read your posts over the years) can't see the real issue because they're so full of hate and fear of the current administration.

I'm not a Bush fan by any means, but this issue is beyond partisan politics. Beyond stupid presidents. Beyond Haliburton, Iraq, Condoleezza's gapped teeth, and Dick's bald pate.

IMO, this is the heart of the matter. I personally feel like we need to intervene diplomatically in the N Korea nukes thang, but we are unable to do so effectively because of the havoc Bush has brought on in his war for Oil.

Diplomacy sometimes requires military threat, but N Korea will NOT take our threats seriously now because they and the rest of the world can clearly see that the U.S. has finally spread its military might so thin that our threats are hollow.

So we're fighting a rich man's war for OIL under the false pretense that it's due to the Terrorism Boogie Man waiting to crush us ( ) at the expense of being able to wage the battles that are truly meaningful(diplomatic as well as actual).

[DjEep]

So we're fighting a rich man's war for OIL under the false pretense that it's due to the Terrorism Boogie Man waiting to crush us ( ) at the expense of being able to wage the battles that are truly meaningful(diplomatic as well as actual).

(seriously, I agree)

[LiveonJG]

This has been a very good debate but the point that really hasn't been stressed yet is the failure of the Bush administration to even pursue a diplomatic resolution. It's the proverbial Nero twiddling his thumbs while Rome burned. You can't get anything accomplished in any relationship without dialog. The administration has intentionally ignored North Korea, except of course to include them in the infamous Axis of Evil. The latest right wing smear campaign I've heard is to blame this all on Clinton! Did North Korea have nukes during the Clinton years? No, want to know why? Diplomacy! Guess what, Kim Il Jong was the leader of North Korea back then too. Times like these bring on a lot of chest beating macho talk that never accomplishes anything other than to enflame the situation. We're getting close to a critical period of our history. We're overpopulating this planet. Things are going to be changing soon, regardless of what we do. Even though science has fallen out of vogue lately, biology and the study of overpopulation on a given ecosystem gives us some vital information. The environment, the Earth is self correcting. Species either survive or perish. It's in all our best interests to work out our differences because as I see it, right now we're headed towards the dustbin of evolution. Unless you don't believe in that, where in we're headed for the rapture. What's the difference?
-John

[DurocShark]

John, that's not entirely correct.

NK has been trying to negotiate with us bilaterally. Our stance has been (and it's the correct stance IMHO) that SK, China, and Russia all need to be involved. So we refused to pursue any talks without them.

The liberal media only shows the fact we're refusing to talk.

The conservative media only shows that Kim is psycho.

You have to go to the BBC or IHT to get real info on what's been happening.

BTW: Non-US media are saying their detonation was much larger than the US is saying. I wonder why the difference? If the administration is lying about it, what do they hope to gain? Certainly not fear mongering which is where I expected us to go.

The only thing I can think of is Bush wants to pursue his adventures in Iran and so is pooh-poohing NK's test. That sucks and only makes the administration (and by extension, the rest of us) look even more bloodthirsty and incapable of coherent thought. I normally wouldn't give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about us, but being stupid doesn't help us.

[LiveonJG]

Thanks for the clarification, Duroc, I knew about the unilateral talks, but if the US wants to portray itself as the world's moral leader, we need to do a hell of a lot more than simply wait for North Korea to come to the table. We should be negotiating with them bilaterally. It's all about the carrot and the stick. The stick has its place but the carrot is a much better solution.
-John

[DjEep]

This has been a very good debate but the point that really hasn't been stressed yet is the failure of the Bush administration to even pursue a diplomatic resolution.

It's the old, "We won't negotiate until you give in to our demands."

That isn't negotiation, it is a just a demand.

Makes no sense. Unless, like durok so eloquently put it, you don't give a crap about what the world thinks. Then the world won't give a crap about you too.

I personally don't fear blinding radioactive death, which is the heart of the matter, people are afraid to die. Why worry about Pyongyang when your bus could fall on you while changing a CV and make it all moot to you.

I would rather try and better the lives of those I know and will meet in my travels than try and stop a nuclear armegeddon that I have no say in.