[BurlyShirley]

I know all you anti-Iraq war types have been whining about the problem of North Korea this entire time...so here US to Consider Sanctions, Could lead to War All will be taken care of in due time.

The debate:

Anyone going to take a stance against this one...should we let North Korea have nukes.

I say no. Do what has to be done to disarm....discuss.

 

[Serial Midget]

No pressing economic interest... China's problem - let them handle it. As for nukes... they have the capacity and they do not appear to be theatening anyone in particular at this point.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Piss no!

Its south Korea's problem, Japan's problem and hence, our problem. I think we're pretty economically tied to both those countries...so id call that a pressing issue.
Also, word is that they have an ICBM to reach San Diego...thats a threat to us.

 

[Serial Midget]

Word was that Saddam had tons of WMDs and was a menace to the world. Turned out he was just a menace to his own country... I don't believe the speculation.

Kim Jung Ill is just a big talker trying to threaten us with is reckless talk - he hopes to gain concessions and aid through black mail. I say ignore him and let his neighbors take care of him.

 

[Serial Midget]

Forgot to add... North Korea is China's baby... they have much to loose if Kim Jung Ill goes wacko.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Word was that Saddam had tons of WMDs and was a menace to the world. Turned out he was just a menace to his own country... I don't believe the speculation.

Kim Jung Ill is just a big talker trying to threaten us with is reckless talk - he hopes to gain concessions and aid through black mail. I say ignore him and let his neighbors take care of him.

I dont mean we should just invade or something right away. But, place some of those...uh...whatre they called again....oh yeah, Sanctions against them...instead of just ignoring them.

We should at least be proactive about a threat....me thinks.

 

[Silver]

I think the problem is going to be the fact that we've given the diplomatic finger to just about every country in the world lately. That's going to make it much harder to deal with North Korea, especially if they already have nuclear weapons.

The one big message I'd get out of the Iraq invasion if I was Iran and North Korea and Syria now?

Get nukes quick. Otherwise, you're toast. The only thing in the world that can balance the unopposed miltary power of the US at this point is a nuclear weapon.

Who would have thought that diplomacy actually had a purpose? Go figure...

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont mean we should just invade or something right away. But, place some of those...uh...whatre they called again....oh yeah, Sanctions against them...instead of just ignoring them.

We should at least be proactive about a threat....me thinks.

Yeah, we should probably go to the UN and ask them to consider sancti....

Whoops!

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
I think the problem is going to be the fact that we've given the diplomatic finger to just about every country in the world lately. That's going to make it much harder to deal with North Korea, especially if they already have nuclear weapons.

The one big message I'd get out of the Iraq invasion if I was Iran and North Korea and Syria now?

Get nukes quick. Otherwise, you're toast. The only thing in the world that can balance the unopposed miltary power of the US at this point is a nuclear weapon.

Who would have thought that diplomacy actually had a purpose? Go figure...

I dont think it would make much sense for any of those country's to try and get nukes.....especially after Iraq. If any of them try, we'll know about it and sanction them to hell. If any of them decided to actually use a nuke...it would certainly be the end for that regime...albeit after some serious damage.

Diplomacy is alive and well amongst the countries that matter in this specific scenario.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Oh crap, forgot,

Silver...what are we to do?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont mean we should just invade or something right away. But, place some of those...uh...whatre they called again....oh yeah, Sanctions against them...instead of just ignoring them.

We should at least be proactive about a threat....me thinks.

Sanction what? It's one of the poorest countries in the world - I say we shoot pennies at them.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Sanction what? It's one of the poorest countries in the world - I say we shoot pennies at them.

Thats it midget?

Just ignore it and it'll probably go away on its own just like that Kanker sore on your inner thigh?

 

[Serial Midget]

Read this peabrains... uh... I mean fellow Monkey's

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Thats it midget?

Just ignore it and it'll probably go away on its own just like that Kanker sore on your inner thigh?

One war per administration is my policy. Junior will have to be re-elected before he can start another war. And... not living near a military base, I only diddle with clean women. No inner thigh concerns for me...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Read this peabrains... uh... I mean fellow Monkey's

Oh right,


I get it now. In fact, i just solved the world's problems....President Bush is Satan...kill him.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
One war per administration is my policy. Junior will have to be re-elected before he can start another war. And... not living near a military base, I only diddle with clean women. No inner thigh concerns for me...

diddle

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Oh right,


I get it now. In fact, i just solved the world's problems....President Bush is Satan...kill him.

Your reaction to opposing views is less than diplomatic... ah, but so is the Commander in Chief's.

 

[patconnole]

Your reaction to opposing views is less than diplomatic... ah, but so is the Commander in Chief's.

Oh, snap!



No time to diddle in world affairs folks, it's race weekend!

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Silver
I think the problem is going to be the fact that we've given the diplomatic finger to just about every country in the world lately. That's going to make it much harder to deal with North Korea, especially if they already have nuclear weapons.

Interestingly enough, NK *wants* the US involved in diplomatic negotiations and got offended when we said we wanted China, et.al. involved.

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Forgot to add... North Korea is China's baby... they have much to loose if Kim Jung Ill goes wacko.

Not necessarily. If NK goes nuts, they'll do so on Japan or SK, but since NK only has a couple nukes, they'll use them all up. That'll give China the excuse they need to march into NK and claim that land.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
The debate:

Anyone going to take a stance against this one...should we let North Korea have nukes.

Why not, we have them. Are they any less worthy than India or France. Hell Russia has or had thousands of them. I don't think Korea is stupid enough to use them on anyone as they know it would mean instant annihilation.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Why not, we have them. Are they any less worthy than India or France. Hell Russia has or had thousands of them. I don't think Korea is stupid enough to use them on anyone as they know it would mean instant annihilation.

Umm, you do know that many people consider the President of NK unstable right? Many say he's more loony than the guy before him and he was really loony.

No, I think enough nukes have been made already. It's not like we need them to defend against an incoming asteroid or invading aliens. We know they don't work on them

 

[splat]

Why has China been so quiet about it ? I mean after all they are neighbors ?

and if that Nutcase in NK were to lob a Nuke at some one , what would China's response be a) to the initial Strike , and b) to the counter strike ?

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Umm, you do know that many people consider the President of NK unstable right? Many say he's more loony than the guy before him and he was really loony.

No, I think enough nukes have been made already. It's not like we need them to defend against an incoming asteroid or invading aliens. We know they don't work on them

As it stands America is the only country to have ever used them on another country, I don't think that gives us the right to take the moral high ground when it comes to other countries possesion of nuclear weapons.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Not necessarily. If NK goes nuts, they'll do so on Japan or SK, but since NK only has a couple nukes, they'll use them all up. That'll give China the excuse they need to march into NK and claim that land.

So what? China has been very well behaved recently, they're practically free market now. If they want North Korea let them have it. The cold war is over... we go nuttin' prove.

 

[Dog Welder]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
So what? China has been very well behaved recently, they're practically free market now. If they want North Korea let them have it. The cold war is over... we go nuttin' prove.

True dat! All we need to do is pump in more Pepsi and Britney Spears and North Korea will go the way of China and South Korea. My question though is what has changed since 2000? Don't forget North and South Korea came out in Sydney under ONE flag. Not to mention the fact that REAl progress was being made to unite families seperated since the Korean war by a border. Could it be the leadership on both sides? North Korea has been facing famine of African proportions for years.

Lastly...Burly...I don't think that sanctions have any use in punishing a country. All it does is fvck over the people. Case in point Iraq and Cuba. Fidel's been there for freakin' ever...so was Saddam...up until two months ago. If you want to punish ( I hesitate to say "punish" cuz it just sounds like a parent schooling a child....it has the sounds of a higher authority when I'm not sure that we are a higher authority) a country...go in a tear a$$ of those in charge OR send in some real diplomats and work $hit out. Compromises will have to be made but I believe there are always infinite solutions to problems where there may only seem to be one. Any other way it seems just ends up hurting the people.

 

[Spud]

If we were to buy into the administration’s rational for invading Iraq, then clearly North Korea needs a regime change. At least Iraq had some sort of façade for allowing inspectors in and denying WMD existence. North Korea threw out inspection teams removed, monitoring stations, intercepted U.S. war planes in open air space, supported terrorism, pursued assassinations and publicly announced plans to go nuclear. Their saving grace is a lousy GDP and little natural resources. They better get really naughty before the come up on the Shrub’s radar screen.

Sarcasm aside they have a truly disturbing regime. I don’t see the US taking military action because of financial considerations.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Dog Welder

Lastly...Burly...I don't think that sanctions have any use in punishing a country. All it does is fvck over the people. Case in point Iraq and Cuba. Fidel's been there for freakin' ever...so was Saddam...up until two months ago. If you want to punish ( I hesitate to say "punish" cuz it just sounds like a parent schooling a child....it has the sounds of a higher authority when I'm not sure that we are a higher authority) a country...go in a tear a$$ of those in charge OR send in some real diplomats and work $hit out. Compromises will have to be made but I believe there are always infinite solutions to problems where there may only seem to be one. Any other way it seems just ends up hurting the people.

Apples and Oranges man,

North Korea is now trying to move up in the world and get out from under sanctions by using threats. Sanctions do have some leverage in this case, and seem like a rather viable alternative to me.
We, along with the China, Australia, South Korea and Japan are the higher authority. Sure there are infinite solutions to any problem, but ignoring a problem almost never makes it go away. And besides, if we were to back off, that just tells any other country that can get its grubby little hands on a nuke that the US wont do Sh**.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

I think any military action would have to be considered much much, much more carefully than what we did in Iraq. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (they're democratic? oh great! and its ruled by the people! cool!) has what, the third largest standing army in the world? Any conflict with them would certainly be a tough battle and an even tougher occupation.

 

[Dog Welder]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Apples and Oranges man,

North Korea is now trying to move up in the world and get out from under sanctions by using threats. Sanctions do have some leverage in this case, and seem like a rather viable alternative to me.
We, along with the China, Australia, South Korea and Japan are the higher authority. Sure there are infinite solutions to any problem, but ignoring a problem almost never makes it go away. And besides, if we were to back off, that just tells any other country that can get its grubby little hands on a nuke that the US wont do Sh**.

True....I'm just trying to pinpoint where they went wrong. Two years ago things were looking like North and South were about to bury the hatchet. Didn't the current President take over when his father died? Maybe the son's just messed in the head.

 

[Thepagoda]

When have sanctions actually worked? Anybody have a concrete case where they solved a problem rather than simply screwing over the people of that country?

I Don't think that anybody who supported the war in Iraq on any grounds other than economic could oppose a war in N. Korea, that would expose their hypocracy. I remain skeptical if there will be any action aside from perhaps an increased fleet presence and probably some sanctions and summits until after re-election is won or lost. The action taken at this point will really expose the motives behind the Bush regime's thinking. I never thought this was about weapons or dictators, and since we already have strategic positioning there and their country is shy on natural resources, I think that we'll stay out of N. Korea

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Silver

The one big message I'd get out of the Iraq invasion if I was Iran and North Korea and Syria now?

Get nukes quick. Otherwise, you're toast. The only thing in the world that can balance the unopposed miltary power of the US at this point is a nuclear weapon.

Spooky, that's exactly what I said in some other thread. Bush creates the Axis of Evil, invades Iraq because it would not do to wait for them to develop WMD which would make it harder and more dangerous to invade, then starts threatening Iran, North Korea and now Syria.

You have to think about how this is percieved in those countries, Iran believe that they are next on his list.

What would I do if I were Kim Jung III? I would build as many sodding nuclear devices as I could, simply self-defence.

If the US is going to go around threatening anyone without nuclear weapons you'd better go and get yourself some. Why did the USSR spend so much (too much) money and time in an arms race? Not because they wanted to invade the US but because they were paranoid about the US (who were building more, building them faster, siting them throughout Europe, spying with better technology etc.).

If you generate fear other nations will arm themselves.

An analogy - if there were lots of break-ins in your neighbourhood, would you throw away what guns/baseball bats you had by your bed? Would you reduce the number of locks on your doors?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff


An analogy - if there were lots of break-ins in your neighbourhood, would you throw away what guns/baseball bats you had by your bed? Would you reduce the number of locks on your doors?

Wait, are the robbers only robbing houses of people who own guns and baseball bats? If my getting rid of weapons would stop a burglary, and i knew that, id get rid of them.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Wait, are the robbers only robbing houses of people who own guns and baseball bats? If my getting rid of weapons would stop a burglary, and i knew that, id get rid of them.

I hope that was just a pop at my poor analogy, as the point was having the weapons would stop you getting attacked. I forgot that you need to advertise the fact in the real world.

Throwing them away didn't help Saddam much did it?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
I hope that was just a pop at my poor analogy, as the point was having the weapons would stop you getting attacked. I forgot that you need to advertise the fact in the real world.

Throwing them away didn't help Saddam much did it?

Well Saddam sure didnt do a good job of proving it. In fact, the joury's still out on that one.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well Saddam sure didnt do a good job of proving it. In fact, the joury's still out on that one.

Aye, the jury's still out from both perspectives. From the perspective af Iran I would imagine they see the situation as that the US was going to go in regardless of what Saddam did in terms of disarmament. Let's face it, the US administration began coming up with more and more justifications besides WMD as that didn't seem to convince most people (and so far evidence of them is surprisingly thin).

If I were in power in Iran or North Korea I'd be trying to get a nuke like crazy, it's the only bargaining power that they are likely to have. Disarming would seem like suicide to me after what happened to Saddam - systemically stripped of military resources for years and then attacked by the most powerful and technologically advanced nation on earth.

Don't forget that it is practically impossible to prove a negative. No matter how many times Saddam would have said he had no WMD, even if it were true then the US could still say "We don't believe you" and he could not prove them wrong.

As soon as the onus was put on Saddam to prove that he was free of WMD it was only a matter of time before the invasion.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Don't forget that it is practically impossible to prove a negative. No matter how many times Saddam would have said he had no WMD, even if it were true then the US could still say "We don't believe you" and he could not prove them wrong.

As soon as the onus was put on Saddam to prove that he was free of WMD it was only a matter of time before the invasion.

umm, while I know nearly nothing about chemical and bio weapons, you know even less. You cannot get rid of the WMDs that Iraq has/had without physical evidence. There are significant, non-toxic residual components leftover from neutralizing the WMDs that can only come from the WMDs. Since it was known that Iraq had these in the 80s and 90s, then it was up to Iraq to prove they neutralized them... which they never even pretended to do.

sorry, it just sounds like you're an apologist for Saddam... and if that's the case, that'd be some serious BS and I don't mean Burly

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by LordOpie
umm, while I know nearly nothing about chemical and bio weapons, you know even less. You cannot get rid of the WMDs that Iraq has/had without physical evidence. There are significant, non-toxic residual components leftover from neutralizing the WMDs that can only come from the WMDs. Since it was known that Iraq had these in the 80s and 90s, then it was up to Iraq to prove they neutralized them... which they never even pretended to do.

sorry, it just sounds like you're an apologist for Saddam... and if that's the case, that'd be some serious BS and I don't mean Burly

Eh? How can you prove you no longer have something? It's impossible to prove a negative.

I am no apologist for Saddam, he could have done more to save himself, but he left it too late.

The point is that it appears that the US decided last year that they wanted to get rid of him and they were going to do so regardless of any of his actions.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Eh? How can you prove you no longer have something?

I just told you that these weapons leave a specific, non-destructive residue behind during the neutralization process. That's the proof that Saddam could have shown that he dismantled his weapons. Go do a search if you don't believe me -- I'm not gonna bother finding you a link.

I will give you a cotton swab though... clean out that earwax

 

[ohio]

While I disagree with fluff concerning Saddam's ability to satisfactorily (is that a word?) prove disarmament... I still fully agree with the much more important point. The US's approach to Iraq and N Korea in the past year has proven to the world that Chem/Bio weapons will not protect you, but a Nuke will. Get a nuke as fast as you can, and you'll have something to bargain with, otherwise your future will be according to the whims of the US government.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Wait, are the robbers only robbing houses of people who own guns and baseball bats? If my getting rid of weapons would stop a burglary, and i knew that, id get rid of them.

It will prevent the burglary but you'll have to hand over the house and family, and move out.

moving outside the analogy... sure, some (most?) of the people of these nations might hope their leaders do not pursue nuclear weapons and incur "the wrath," but the leaders of these nations are generally too self-interested to care. They want to insure their positions in government. We (the US) have proven the only way to do that is to be a nuclear power.