North Korea

[onthebottom]

What should the world do about the threat from North Korea? Check out this news article: http://news.yahoo.com/?tmpl=story2&cid=512&e=2&u=/ap/20030212/ap_on_go_co/us_north_korea_missile

It says basically that North Korea has 2 plutonium based devices and has the means to deliver them (3 stage missile) to the West Coast of the US.

What should the world do about North Korea?

OTB

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Um, attempt to link them to Al Qaeda and bomb the hell out of them?

 

[gryfin]

Your questions

OTB, your questions have a "Have you stopped beating your wife" quality to them. We all know the intended answer to your questions before we have even finished reading them.

There is so much jingoism in you it's creepy.

 

[Meesh]

Send 'em a pie.


...ohh, sorry Goober....

 

[onthebottom]

jingoism

jingoism
noun
DISAPPROVING
the extreme belief that your own country is always best, which is often shown in enthusiastic support for a war against another country
Patriotism can turn into jingoism and intolerance very quickly.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Your questions

OTB, your questions have a "Have you stopped beating your wife" quality to them. We all know the intended answer to your questions before we have even finished reading them.

There is so much jingoism in you it's creepy.

If you were paying attention to my posts you would note that I don't think this is an issue the US should lead on. Did you have other questions of mine that had the "wife beating" character?

Your sarcastic reply denotes a belief that there is only one right answer, I wish I knew what it was.

Or should I take the insight provided by the posts to date as a reflection of Canada Foreign Policy (we're not the US)?

OTB

 

[rocko]

My sense of things is that the U.S. has choices of being blackmailed , being nuked or allowing South Korea to be destroyed along with a large number of the 37000 troops they have there. I think that in short order they will do a pre emptive strike on the nuclear facilities and take their chances on comes from that. Russia and China will stay out and there will be probably a full scale conventional war to which North Korea does not have the resources to continue for any period of time.The North is ruled by a dangerous despot but not a stupid despot so perhaps he will back down when faced with total annilhilation.

 

[CyberGoth]

please, dont even joke about that.

north koreas little despot happens to also be a full blown psychotic who has spent his entire life being told that he is "the son of GOD" or rather the hardline stalinist equivalent.

shakes his head in disbelief at how stupid humanity can be.

 

[John Drake]

Not to sound simplistic, the stage for a very messy scenario is set.

Korea, Iraq, India, Pakistan, China, break up of Russian structure, terrorist cells........

A very interesting few years ahead for the history of the world.


JD


ps...I think Larry Tannenbaum is also a factor

 

[Bboy]

Um, attempt to link them to Al Qaeda and bomb the hell out of them?

Why should we feel the Need to link them?

It's been reported that the North Korean's have an untested ballistic missile capability. And if you still think they don't have the bomb I've some swamp land in Durham region to sell you.

That being said this is not the same thing as Al Qaeda, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Every situation is different, with different players, circumstances, and repercussions.
As for North Korea the diplomatic game is just starting. The most important player will not be the US. Why, because their position, thier part in this play, is clear. The most important moves in this game will be done in the back rooms by the likes of China and Russia. Both of which want stability in the region as well as the desire to maintain their good standing on the world stage.
As well, North Korea is starving period. It is 10 times as vile a situation as Iraq. Their people have been starving for years while Kim and his thugs peal grapes and spend more and more on their military. Freud would have a field day with this shit. Most of the aid that is sent to the North Korean's, FROM THE WEST, is diverted (ie stolen) and given to the military.
Do I want to carpet bomb Kim and his thugs - fucking right I do; Al Qadea or not! But I tell you what, why don't we let the Chinese just tap him on the shoulder and remind him of how many million chinese soldiers are sitting on his border and whisper in Kim's ear "um we are really enjoying our new found status in the west, so why don't you sit down and shut the fuck up hmmm?"

 

[Bboy]

Nearly, I think China will have to recognize that the US couldn't be more entangled if they wanted to be. China would love to involve Taiwan in the equation if they could. The US will take a hard line to this and say it does not factor (which it doesn't). In the end I think China will see the advantages on the world stage of looking like the peace brokers and it will be a race between them and Russia to see who neutilizes Kim's threat first.
That or the US will send the Pacific fleet in and Kim and Saddam will end up enjoying warm showers together in a very quiet and secluded neutral country.

...then we'll send in some Canadian Peacekeepers, like we've just announced for Afghanistan and even Selina will be happy.
Plus this way for sure we'll have no troops to send in support of a war in Iraq. Yep we'd love to be there with ya George but hey we're just to darn busy elsewhere!

 

[onthebottom]

Bboy

I think you're right on China, they are the only one's with influence (financial aid), they should be able to talk some sence into this idiot.

It will be interesting to see if Canada shows up in Iraq, I'd guess yes but we'll find out soon enough.

OTB

 

[Bboy]

OTB, my bet is that Canada will end up having a token role in Iraq just to say we were there. The US does want our JFT2 guys as well as maybe our sniper teams/recce units (Coyote vehicles). Other than that we might possibly send in support personal - transport/hospital etc. But as to combat troops I don't see it happening and the way our government has gotten out of it is to announce that we're sending our guys back to Afghanistan, knowing that we just don't have the resources to be in all places at once.

 

[Timberwolf]

to Onthebottom:

You miss the point. Nobody talks sense to an idiot. You have to understand human nature. There are people out there who are non-responsive to logic and common sense. When presented with this type and having your quality of life locked in the balance of what they do, what do you do? Forget what you want or what would be nice if you were dealing with a different person; what do you do with the facts presented? This is the problem the U.S. is faced with in the Middle East and North Korea, among other hot spots.

You know I am with you man. Forget this shit of God save the Queen in this country (Canada ). It should be, please U.S. help us ( the rest of the world ) the fuck out of our mess. Noboby else has the balls or wherewithall to do it.

 

[kwong_1978]

Attention, that's what N.Korea

is looking for. That and some financial assistance. It will be a mistake to take a hardline approach.

Please U.S.A do not play "brinkmanship" with a country that has a crazy lunatic as a leader. All your experts can not predict precisely what he might do if you back him into a "nuclear" corner.

 

[TravellingGuy]

Re: Bboy

It will be interesting to see if Canada shows up in Iraq, I'd guess yes but we'll find out soon enough.

The Canadian Government just released that they will be sending 1000-1500 additional troops to Afghanistan for peacekeeping.Reporters mentioned that its one or the other (Iraq or Afghanistan). The decision I'm sure was not easy, by not going into to Iraq we risk upseting the US, but the Canadian Population has shown a strong opposition to going to war with Iraq, obviously a government has to listen to its people. Canada (as everyone knows) doesn't have the military for a War, we do well in peacekeeping missions (our reputation in the department is world reknown). I think peacekeeping in Afgahnistan is a much better use of our resources.

 

[Bboy]

traveling guy

War or peacekeeping the Canadian military, underfunded understaffed and under-equipped that it is; is highly capable of carrying out the missions given it. Point being it doesn't matter if that mission is combat or peacekeeping.
No we don't have the resources that the US does, and we are ridicoulously underfunded and equipped. But I will put our best fighter pilots up against any in the world.
We should not be so quick to cast dispersions on our military (or the professionals in it) just the politicians that control and fund it.

As to Afghanistan has anybody noticed that there is no peace there to keep?!! Peacekeeping has changed so much since Pearson first put forth the concept that the conditions that exist on the ground for the grunt are 1000% different than the preception that is held by the public. Canada has been treading on a peacekeeping reputation that was made in the 60s and 70s in conditons in theater that don't exist now in the modern world conflict. Because of this our peacekeepers are sent on missions that are woefully undersupported, not thought out, poorly defined, and dangerously undertaken. Yet we would never think to send our troops into combat under such conditions.....but that's ok we're going there to be peacekeepers. Safer my ass.

 

[TravellingGuy]

I'm not saying its safer to be doing the peacekeeping and I understand the difficulties our military faces given the poor funding, I'm not saying our Military is any weaker,that was not my point, because of the state of our Military they say we can't be in both Afghan and Iraq, so they chose to do peacekeeping, its still a contribution to the efforts in the area and it appeases the Canadian population which is against going to war.

If the UN gives sanction to War on Iraq and the politicians in our Country feel that the people of our country want us to go to war then I'm all for the war. However, given that our country is divided on going to war I think the additional commitment to peacekeeping in Afghan is a good thing.

 

[onthebottom]

Canadian Military

I don't think anyone would responsibly cast dispersion on the quality or professionalism of your military. The size and funding is another thing but that's a political issue that politicians have to defend.

OTB