A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
That comes close to accusing GWB to declaring “war on terror” to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
There is no way that a government would get away with distracting from interior problems by creatiing an enemy on the outside…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.[/quote]
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
[/quote]
He still can’t nuke us.
"SEOUL, South Korea ? North Korea blasted U.N. sanctions Tuesday aimed at punishing the country for its atomic test, saying the measures were a declaration of war and that the nation wouldn’t yield to such pressure now that it’s a nuclear weapons power.
The warning ? the central government’s first response to the U.N. measures approved last weekend ? came as the U.S. nuclear envoy began his visit to South Korea by saying Pyongyang should pay a high price for its reckless behavior.
The North broke two days of silence about the U.N. resolution adopted after its Oct. 9 nuclear test, issuing a Foreign Ministry statement on its official Korean Central News Agency.
“The resolution cannot be construed otherwise than a declaration of a war” against the North, also known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the statement said.
The North warned it “wants peace but is not afraid of war” and that it would “deal merciless blows” against anyone who violated its sovereignty."
—www.foxnews.com
[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
He still can’t nuke us.[/quote]
Didn’t Kim send you the memo?
Seriously though, how do you know this? Secondly, even if he can’t, should we wait until he can? How do you negotiate with a psychopath like Kim?
Kill them now, when its easier, or kill 'em later when many more will die. Pick one — and your time is running out.
Tick
Tick
Tick
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
He still can’t nuke us.
Didn’t Kim send you the memo?
Seriously though, how do you know this? Secondly, even if he can’t, should we wait until he can? How do you negotiate with a psychopath like Kim?
Kill them now, when its easier, or kill 'em later when many more will die. Pick one — and your time is running out.
Tick
Tick
Tick
[/quote]
They pretty much had the worst initial test of a nuke ever, and you are worried about them nuking us? Please tell us how they are gonna get a bomb over here?
Call the cubans and ask to borrow a raft?!?
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
[quote]Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
He still can’t nuke us.
Didn’t Kim send you the memo?
Seriously though, how do you know this? Secondly, even if he can’t, should we wait until he can? How do you negotiate with a psychopath like Kim?
Kill them now, when its easier, or kill 'em later when many more will die. Pick one — and your time is running out.
Tick
Tick
Tick
They pretty much had the worst initial test of a nuke ever, and you are worried about them nuking us? Please tell us how they are gonna get a bomb over here?
Call the cubans and ask to borrow a raft?!?
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…[/quote]
Yep, let’s wait until they get it right. Practice makes perfect, afterall.
[quote]Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…[/quote]
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
North Korea should, as we speak, be a nuclear wasteland. Millions of innocents will die, whether here or in the USA, if this nut does as he says.
I believe him. Do you trust him to do otherwise?
He still can’t nuke us.
Didn’t Kim send you the memo?
Seriously though, how do you know this? Secondly, even if he can’t, should we wait until he can? How do you negotiate with a psychopath like Kim?
Kill them now, when its easier, or kill 'em later when many more will die. Pick one — and your time is running out.
Tick
Tick
Tick
They pretty much had the worst initial test of a nuke ever, and you are worried about them nuking us? Please tell us how they are gonna get a bomb over here?
Call the cubans and ask to borrow a raft?!?
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yep, let’s wait until they get it right. Practice makes perfect, afterall.
[/quote]
I am not advocating them getting it right, thank Bush for giving them the chance to do it (they had no refined plutonium while Clinton was in office, but they did have nuclear ambitions).
China is between a rock and a hard place, piss off their little brother or piss off their biggest trading partner in the world? Maybe if we had, you know, tried to take care of this a few years ago we wouldn’t be having this problem, but hindsight is 20/20.
There is no way we can handle a war in NK, the only options left are diplomatic and economic, and I say we squeeze hard as hell till that short megalomaniac has no other options but ours.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?[/quote]
Except that he hasn’t threatened Belgium, and he never will, for a damn good reason – Belgium minds it’s own business. It doesn’t threaten anyone, and so, it is not threatened.
Negotiation hasn’t “worked in the past” because it hasn’t been tried. It worked with China and the USSR, both of which were greater potential threats to the U.S.
Keep your pants on.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Kim Jung-Il has stated publicly that he intends to nuke us, unless we negotiate with him, something that has never worked in the past. He has threatened us in no uncertain terms. How would you like it if he said he intended to nuke Brussels?
Except that he hasn’t threatened Belgium, and he never will, for a damn good reason – Belgium minds it’s own business. It doesn’t threaten anyone, and so, it is not threatened.
Negotiation hasn’t “worked in the past” because it hasn’t been tried. It worked with China and the USSR, both of which were greater potential threats to the U.S.
Keep your pants on.[/quote]
Minding their own business did not serve them well 60 some years ago.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
[/quote]
What leverage would that be?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Minding their own business did not serve them well 60 some years ago.[/quote]
Oh, boy. Here we go again. Interventionist vs. Isolationist. New school versus old. You know what I’m going to say – that history didn’t begin with a certain series of events 60 years ago – and I know how you would reply. I think I’ll skip it this time. I’m looking for newer and greener pastures. If you feel like pressing this further then I would suggest doing it on the Pat Buchanon thread that I made.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.[/quote]
This is news to you?
Every national leader I can think of dealing with failed internal policies (whether inherited or created by them) does much better in domestic public opionion when there is a real or percieved enemy to be dealt with. You should have first learned about this with when/if you read “1984”.
Saddam had Iran & US
Arabs and Israel have each other
Clinton had Bosnia
GHW Bush had Noriega and Saddam
Reagan had Libya
India and Pakistan have each other.
etc etc etc
This is not new(s).
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
A rather clever article here: NK nukes: We're all (not) going to die • The Register
In short, Kim wants the US threat at his borders to distract people from deteriorating domestic conditions.[/quote]
He wants his people to believe the US is on the border, but since he has such a strangle-hold on communication with the outside world, he really doesn’t need to saber rattle for the sake of his people’s perceptions. He can simply tell them what he wants them to believe and they will believe it because they know no better.
His saber rattling is not for them. It is to bring us to the table with more offerings of assistance to get him to back down, or to further his arms trade by showing the world what he has ([sarcasm]which according to radiation monitoring in the area is the first ever nuclear weapon without radioactive fallout [/sarcasm])
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
What leverage would that be?
[/quote]
Some credibility is a good place to start. How about an army that isn’t stretched thin? Or better yet, never giving them a reason to shit their pants and ramp up their nuclear ambitions because it looks like we are coming after them next? You do remember that brilliant axis of evil speech right?
[quote]Ren wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
What leverage would that be?
Some credibility is a good place to start. How about an army that isn’t stretched thin? Or better yet, never giving them a reason to shit their pants and ramp up their nuclear ambitions because it looks like we are coming after them next? You do remember that brilliant axis of evil speech right?[/quote]
They had nuclear aspirations for decades. To blame it on a speech is silly.
Do you think if our military was not stretched they would have done this anyway? They were doing it before we invaded Iraq.
[quote]Ren wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
What leverage would that be?
Some credibility is a good place to start. How about an army that isn’t stretched thin? Or better yet, never giving them a reason to shit their pants and ramp up their nuclear ambitions because it looks like we are coming after them next? You do remember that brilliant axis of evil speech right?[/quote]
What country is it you come from? You sound like an appeaser, someone who’s ready to compromise with evil.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Ren wrote:
But hey, if we hadn’t chased after mythical WMDs in Iraq we’d actually have some leverage against these countries that flaunt theirs…
Yea, hindsight is terrefic isn’t it.
What leverage would that be?
Some credibility is a good place to start. How about an army that isn’t stretched thin? Or better yet, never giving them a reason to shit their pants and ramp up their nuclear ambitions because it looks like we are coming after them next? You do remember that brilliant axis of evil speech right?
What country is it you come from? You sound like an appeaser, someone who’s ready to compromise with evil.
[/quote]
Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, and didn’t he call them an “Evil Empire?”
W’re not trying to make friends here, we’re trying to resolve a problem.
Unfortunately your only idea of resolving a conflict involves 50 kiloton warheads.