MERGED ---> what's up with north korea? + North Korea exports missles - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-29-2002, 08:34 PM   #21
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Sting,

Do you not think the beavior of kicking the UN ispectors out of North Korea is hostile? I do.

You are coming across as being more reactive. What if NK attacked a country tommorow then do we act? You are being preventive with Ira but think talking to NK is the solution? Isnt this how 911 came along? Now you are reacting to that attack. An attack can come at anytime, should we wait till that time before we respond to hostile words and actions from NK
__________________

bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:03 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Bonoman,

When I speak of hostile action, I mean mass violent action on a massive scale that occurs in attacking another country or a full scale invasion. North Korea has certainly decided to not honor its agreement with the UN from 1994, but that in of itself is not a hostile action.

I've never stated that military action with North Korea is not an option, but that Iraq poses a greater threat because of its BEHAVIOR. Again, its behavior + Weapons of Mass destruction that makes the need for military action a very real possibility.

One does not want to use military force if it is not needed. Judging by North Korea's behavior of the past 50 years, they are not about to attack anyone. North Korea is not in violation of 16 United Nations resolutions past under chapter 7 rules. Again, the mere fact that a country possess WMD materials is not the trigger for military action, its BEHAVIOR plus WMD that creates the need for military action. The USA never contemplated military action against South Africa or Brazil despite the fact that at one time South Africa had a nuclear weapon and Brazil could have built one. The reason of course was that their Behavior in foreign policy was not threatening.

But North Korea is still a threat but not in the way that Iraq is. Disarming North Korea could require an invasion of North Korea. Do to the size of the North Korean Army it would require more US military forces than what would be needed to defend South Korea from an attack. It is a much more difficult task to pull off because of the size of the North Korean Military. The North Korean Military's proximity to Seoul South Korea presents a delicate problem not present in the situation with Iraq. Most of North Korea's 10,600 + Conventional Artillery is in range of Soul South Korea. It is a certainty that North Korean Artillery could cause massive damage in Seoul South Korea if there is a military invasion of North Korea. A substantial amount of North Korean Artillery is built into the side of mountains with large concealed concreate doors that open up when they fire. Finding and Taking these large fortified guns out will take time. During this time, massive losses could be inflicted on the civilian population of Seoul to a degree that Iraq is not immediately capable of doing to any of its neighbors. Seoul is less than 30 miles from the Border with North Korea. North Korea's side of the border is a massive military fortification. This is a tactical and technical situation that does not exist with Iraq.

The above facts does not mean that the USA should completely avoid striking North Korea if that becomes necessary, but that there are many considerations that have to be taken into account that are not problems in military intervention against Iraq.

Of course the above does not take into account the fact that North Korea has Nuclear Weapons while Iraq currently does not but is trying to get them. The risk in attacking a Nuclear armed country is immeasurably greater than attacking one with just Bio/Chem weapons. This is another problem and risk that does not exist in yet in the Iraq situation. It is also an obvious reason that Iraq should be dealt with now before it obtains a Nuclear weapon.

Bottom line, Iraq's Behavior + WMD equal a threat that must be disarmed by military force if necessary. North Korea's technical abilities are very threatening, but their behavior over 50 years does not indicate that they are about to attack anyone or fire a ballistic missile at anyone. North Korea has not been at war with anyone in 50 years. That fact is not something you can just sweep under the rug.

No one wants to use military action if it is not necessary. Events in Iraq right now are leading to military action being a necessity. The Question to ask in BOTH situations on North Korea and Iraq is this: Is the risk of continueing with just containment greater than the risk of invasion?

In the case of Iraq, it is a greater risk to simply continue with just containment vs. invasion, if Iraq does not comply soon. In the case of North Korea, an invasion would be more risky than the policy of containment that has worked for 50 years, at the moment. The risk factor with North Korea could change though.

Iraq's actions have proven that it is an aggressive nation. North Korea's actions over the past 50 years in regards to its actions against other countries have been passive comparitively to Iraq.

Its not simply about prevention or reacting but rather a solution based on the level of risk in both situations and risk in the different senerio's for resolving those situations.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:26 AM   #23
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:22 PM
allright...i will agree with you on the fact that iraq posses the most immediate threat but i still rermain unconvinced that NK threat (as in how many ppl can be killed) is still there and should be dealt with very soon.

I am not sure of this but has NK ever been in the business of selling weapons? Would they ever support Iraq in a war with US?
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:54 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Bonoman,

The North Korean threat you speak of has been there by most estimates since 1994 when it is believed they most likely built their first Nuclear Weapons. Their Conventional, and Chem/Bio Weapons have been there for nearly 50 years. The Risk now is that they could increase their stockpile from about 5 to several dozen.

North Korea has sold Ballistic Missiles to Iran, Yemen, and Pakistan. Ballistic Missiles are considered to be conventional weapons but can be fitted with Nuclear/Bio/Chem warheads instead of conventional ones.

They do not have the ability to support Iraq against the USA unless they found a way to smuggle them Ballistic missiles or other weapons. Sanctions have kept such large weapons platforms out of Iraq.
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 02:57 AM   #25
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:22 PM
We can never know what iraq has. They could be hiding their abilities.
bonoman is offline  
Old 12-30-2002, 03:03 PM   #26
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Montréal, Québec
Posts: 317
Local Time: 12:22 AM
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new. Besides, the first exportation of the US is weapons or military-related. I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities, since their country has the most and the most weapons and their economy first stuff is related to weapons.
Holy John is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 01:36 AM   #27
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 637
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Holy John
"North Korea exports missiles"

I don't see why the Americans are fussy about other countries having nuclear military capacities...
Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?
wolfwill23 is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 03:26 AM   #28
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 05:22 PM
What and you figure that Canada and the US arent one in the same?

Anything that happens south of my border effects me just as much, through economics, health and safety. Remember Canada is the the little Devil!
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 06:26 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Holy John
"North Korea exports missiles"

That's nothing new.
Maybe it isn't. Having reread the article, tha major deal is that they were being exported to YEMEN. Yemen, the country in which the USS Cole was bombed, and a country in which many Al-Qaeda operatives seem to like to hang out in. Maybe, that is the reason it was a big deal at the time. Within 24 hours, when it was realized who the missles were for, they were released.

Peace
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-02-2003, 11:36 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by wolfwill23


Maybe you'd be singing a different tune if Canada was a potential target for nukes sold to terrorists from Iraq or North Korea. The people of all FREE nations are in the war on terrorism, not just the US, eh?
Have any nukes been sold to terrorists by whoever? We don´t know.

Has any A weaponry been sold to whoever by Iraq or NK? We don´t know, but don´t think so; Iraq not capable of selling, NK probably not evil enough (but who knows - we don´t know).

How many nations are free? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism? Have all so-called free nations agreed? How many have agreed w the war on terrorism in general, how many have agreed w U.S. methods of fighting terrorism?

Maybe you´d be singing a different tune if you learned to research correctly and to express your opinions more eloquent.
hiphop is offline  
Old 01-04-2003, 06:23 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 04:22 PM
After reading this I did research.

South Korea has a 600,000-man army
US have 37,000 troops in S. Korea.



I think N. Korea so far has gotten the better of Bush and Co.
They keep restating and changing their approach to N. Korea.

It is ironic how S. Korea has offered to mediate between US and N. Korea


N. Korea could be a bigger threat than Iraq.

I still support regime change in Iraq. I still believe it is about oil and the US changing it's relationship with Saudi.

I hope it is stage one of a three stage plan to bring a permanent peace to the mid-east.
deep is offline  
Old 01-04-2003, 06:34 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I hope it is stage one of a three stage plan to bring a permanent peace to the mid-east.
What do you think the other stages would be and how successful do you think any such plan could be?
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 01-05-2003, 10:36 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 12:22 AM
I hope it is stage one of a three stage plan to bring a permanent peace to the mid-east. [/B][/QUOTE]

1. sex
2. drugs
3. rock and roll
JOFO is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 10:53 PM   #34
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Kick the (Korea) Can
By Michael Kelly

Wednesday, January 8, 2003; Page A19

On North Korea, the conventional wisdom in Washington, which happens to be the same as the conventional wisdom in Pyongyang, goes roughly like this: George W. Bush triggered the crisis by excessive hardening-of-line and axis-of-evil-calling; Bush is compounding his hard-lining error by irresponsibly refusing to negotiate with Pyongyang; and, paradoxically, Bush is guilty of foreign-policy incoherence or worse in adopting a harder line toward Saddam Hussein than toward Kim Jong Il.
Conventional wisdom tends by its nature to get things wrong, but seldom this wrong and seldom this dangerously wrong. This is wrong to the point of divorce from reality.
The reality, in brief, is as follows (largely taken from reports by the Congressional Research Service, the Federation of American Scientists and the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control):
North Korea has been working on developing nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons delivery systems for at least three decades. Since the 1970s, North Korea has agreed to inspection regimes, treaties and other agreements intended to curb its bomb-building, and it has violated all of these agreements. In fact, North Korea has used episodic violation as a tool of foreign policy, periodically forcing confrontation to produce fresh agreements and fresh outpourings of money and other aid from its neighbors, the United Nations and the United States.
In the latest of such successful blackmailings, North Korea won an agreement with the United States -- the Agreed Framework of Oct. 21, 1994, negotiated, after Jimmy Carter's intercession, with the Clinton administration. This agreement was never more than a kicking of the can. Indeed, it was so by definition. South Korea agreed to construct for North Korea two light-water (non-plutonium-producing) reactors at a cost of $4.5 billion, and the United States promised annual gifts of half a million tons of heavy fuel oil until the reactors were built. In exchange, North Korea agreed only to "freeze" -- emphatically not to abandon -- its bomb program.
Specifically, North Korea promised to halt the construction of two major nuclear reactors at its Yongbyon facility, capable of annually producing enough weapons-usable plutonium to make 30 bombs; to shut down its plutonium reprocessing center also at Yongbyon; and to not refuel an already constructed plutonium-producing reactor. But the agreement delayed for five years any inspection regime serious enough to ensure verification.
Moreover, the framework made no provision for dealing with the gains North Korea had already made in its decades-long nuclear program. With an estimated 3,000 scientists working at Yongbyon alone, this program had, by 1994, already produced enough weapons-grade plutonium to make anywhere from two to six small atomic bombs, according to the intelligence estimates of the United States, South Korea, Japan, Germany and Russia.
A 1990 KGB report to the Soviet Central Committee asserted, based on "available data," that North Korea had "completed" its "first nuclear device," and in 1994, before the agreement, the director of the CIA said that the agency believed North Korea had already produced one to two bombs. Current U.S. intelligence assessments are that North Korea has probably produced at least one nuclear weapon.
The United States government had so little faith in the 1994 agreement that it did not define it as a formal treaty -- it did not wish to be legally bound by an agreement it had so little reason to think would be kept.
And the agreement was not kept -- the can was merely kicked, and not very far. In October 2002, after years of mounting evidence of North Korean violations, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly confronted North Korea with evidence that it was conducting a clandestine bomb-building program based on a process of enriching uranium. North Korea had begun this program only months after the signing of the 1994 Agreed Framework -- and, note, seven years before George Bush called anybody evil. North Korea first denied the truth, then admitted it -- and then unilaterally "nullified" the 1994 deal.
We were bound to arrive at this point, no matter which president ended up holding the can kicked in 1994. North Korea never had any intention of living up to the agreement, and it never did. Eventually, it was going to get caught, and it did.
Bush has reacted as probably any responsible president would. He has refused to back down. Well, what else? Would it be better that he "renegotiate" -- that he give North Korea another seven years of bomb-building time?
He has promised not to wage war against North Korea, not to treat this particular evildoer as he is threatening to treat another. Well, what else again? There is, in the end, one stark difference here. We are trying to stop Iraq's madman from acquiring the Bomb. North Korea already has one.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
us3 is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 10:59 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:22 PM
This just in.......


Report: N. Korea Quits Nuclear Treaty
11 minutes ago

By PAUL SHIN

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea (news - web sites) withdrew from the global nuclear arms control treaty Friday, the communist nation's official news agency said, heightening the crisis over the North's nuclear development plans.


AP Photo



North Korea pledged that despite its withdrawal it would not develop nuclear arms.


"Though we pull out of the (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), we have no intention of producing nuclear weapons," the Korean Central News Agency reported. "Our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity."


North Korea said its withdrawal from the treaty will free it from obligations too the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.


The announcement came as the United States was awaiting a reply from Pyongyang about its decision to open dialogue to seek a peaceful resolution of the country's nuclear weapons development.


The country called the withdrawal "a legitimate self-defensive measure taken against the U.S. moves to stifle" North Korea.


North Korea has repeatedly accused the United States of plotting to invade it, and has said it has the right to develop weapons for its self-defense. However, it has never publicly said that it has a nuclear weapons program.


North Korea joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985 but took steps in 1993 to withdraw from it amid tensions over its suspected nuclear weapons program.


The 1968 treaty is considered a cornerstone in the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.


The crisis was defused a year later when North Korea agreed to freeze its facilities at Yongbyon under an energy deal with the United States.


Only four other countries — Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan — are not signatories, though Cuba is a member of a treaty establishing a nuclear-free zone in Latin America.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 11:02 PM   #36
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 04:22 PM
uh...so much for lollygagging!!! dread u beat me by mere mins
us3 is offline  
Old 01-09-2003, 11:37 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Not everyone in the administration is ticked off at North Korea's surprise plan to resume nuclear bomb making. For some top officials, it's the perfect excuse to take out Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Here's the reasoning: North Korea is exactly the type of emerging nuclear power that Iraq wants to be unless Saddam is stopped. "You can strike before he gets nukes," says a top official, "but not after."
deep is offline  
Old 01-12-2003, 06:14 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Jan. 12, 2003, 12:40AM

Bush team blames Clinton for crisis
Says 1994 N. Korea agreement left `the difficult things' for next leader
By KAREN DeYOUNG and T.R. REID
Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- A senior Bush administration official suggested Saturday that the nuclear crisis with North Korea was the predictable result of a flawed 1994 agreement signed by the Clinton administration with Pyongyang that "frontloaded all the benefits and left the difficult things to the end" -- for the next president.

The comments marked a sharp change of direction from the administration's insistence in recent weeks that only North Korea was to blame for the crisis. As recently as last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he gave "great credit" to the Clinton administration for freezing North Korea's plutonium enrichment program with the 1994 Agreed Framework.

On Saturday, North Korea threatened to abandon a moratorium on ballistic missile tests, further escalating a confrontation with its neighbors and the United States one day after withdrawing from a global treaty designed to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.

North Korea's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, issued the threat at a news conference in Beijing in which he defended his impoverished nation's right to possess "devices to save us from a nuclear attack" and accused the United States of adopting "hostile policies."

The Bush administration's new formulation of blame coincides with a spate of accusations, some from strong administration supporters, that President Bush may have antagonized North Korea by labeling it part of the "axis of evil" and helped provoke the crisis.

That sentiment appeared to be echoed by North Korean officials meeting Friday and Saturday in Santa Fe with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and former Clinton-era official. Sources involved in those talks said North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Han Song Ryol, had said the Bush administration's tough policy toward North Korea was motivated primarily by Bush's desire to do the opposite of what his predecessor had done on foreign policy.

The North Korean asserted that Pyongyang had been developing a working relationship with Washington toward the end of the Clinton era -- indeed, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang just before President Clinton left office -- but then faced a reversal of policy under Bush.

"They think the Bush people have closed the door on them just because Clinton had opened it," said a source involved in the Santa Fe talks.

But the senior Bush administration official said the "idea that the Agreed Framework was going along just fine" was a misperception. "We were getting to a crisis very quickly," the official said.

Under the accord, the United States agreed to move immediately toward a normalized political and economic relationship with North Korea. The Clinton administration agreed that within six months of the October 1994 accord, it would organize an international consortium and sign a contract to build light water nuclear reactors for North Korea. Until the construction was completed, the United States and its partners would supply North Korea with energy in the form of fuel oil shipments.

In exchange, North Korea agreed to freeze, within three months of signing, operations of its graphite-modulated nuclear reactor that the West believed it was using to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Pyongyang also agreed to submit the country to full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards "when a significant portion of the LWR (light water reactor) project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components" for the facilities.

North Korea has admitted it was seeking weapons-grade material through another route, by secretly enriching uranium. With the foundation for the light water reactors poured last fall, the official said, "we were getting ... to the end of the road. Maybe that is what caused the North Koreans to do what they did. ... They weren't prepared to sign on to safeguards" that would uncover the secret program.

North Korea announced last week that it would put the frozen reactor at Yongbyon back into production and said Friday it was withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty under which it had agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. The administration official said Saturday's announcement about abandoning missile tests, like the others, would bring no change in U.S. policy.

"The North Koreans are quite accustomed" to these tactics, the official said. "They threaten and blackmail and people rush to deal with them, and then they keep their means of threatening and blackmailing. We will continue to consult with our allies in the region and demand that North Korea change its behavior before there are talks between the two governments."

The North Korean envoys meeting with Richardson in Santa Fe said they have tried for weeks to arrange talks with the administration but have been repeatedly rebuffed, people involved in the talks said.

Richardson's aides said he had passed along the request for dialogue to Powell. In a statement issued after the Santa Fe talks, Richardson said, "Ambassador Han told me that North Korea has no intentions of building nuclear weapons."
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-16-2003, 08:56 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 04:22 PM
its going from bad to worse in Korea

__________________

deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×