Well well well.....

[Natoma]

Former defense secretary William Perry warns the US and NK are drifting towards war

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4119.htm

"I think we are losing control" of the situation, said Perry, who believes North Korea soon will have enough nuclear warheads to begin exploding them in tests and exporting them to terrorists and other U.S. adversaries. "The nuclear program now underway in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he said in an interview.

I've been saying for months we should have dealt with NK, first and foremost, with the same energy that we dealt with Iraq. Now look where we are.

The world is safe from imminent nuclear threats? Please. Tell that to the crazy Korean who's only a few months away from having multiple nuclear bombs...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I've been saying for months we should have dealt with NK, first and foremost, with the same energy that we dealt with Iraq. Now look where we are.

You're saying the known circumstances are really vastly different now compared to about a year ago?

Yes, NK should have been dealt with "first and foremost". However, the time to have "dealt" with NK was about 8 years ago. And that would have meant putting up with the same liberal complaints that we had with Iraq. "They aren't a threat...YET...where are these weapons? What right do we have to do anything just based on the possibility that they MIGHT get access to them?"

Hindsight is almost always 20/20.

 

[Natoma]

I've been saying for months we should have dealt with NK, first and foremost, with the same energy that we dealt with Iraq. Now look where we are.

You're saying the known circumstances are really vastly different now compared to about a year ago?

Yes, NK should have been dealt with "first and foremost". However, the time to have "dealt" with NK was about 8 years ago. And that would have meant putting up with the same liberal complaints that we had with Iraq. "They aren't a threat...YET...where are these weapons? What right do we have to do anything just based on the possibility that they MIGHT get access to them?"

Hindsight is almost always 20/20.

Actually it wouldn't have meant dealing with them in that way 8 years ago. Why?

9/11 hadn't happened. It was a different climate pre-9/11.

We knew they were close to having a nuke in 1993 when that agreement was signed, but the food-for-dismantling nukes program was setup in order to avert a war. This was of course before everyone knew about Al-Qaeda and what they were capable of.

So no, the situations are entirely different.

Also, the known situation in January was that NK would have a nuke by summer time, and 3-6 by the end of the year. But they did not have a nuke *yet*. So yes, the situation has changed drastically within the past month or so because now they actually have a physical deterrant.

And lets not forget that the evidence against Iraq has been found to be indeed false, or mishandled, or very very tenuous at best. Niger, Aluminum Tubes, link to Al-Qaeda, etc. The evidence against NK came from NK themselves. In fact, they've signed off on the fact that they have been developing Nukes and have publicized since last summer that they were going to start reprocessing their spent fuel rods into nuclear material for building bombs and selling them on the black market in order to increase the cash flow for their country. On top of that, they have made highly publicized test firings into the Sea of Japan to show off their Missiles.

We know that within 2-3 years they will have nuclear tipped Taepadong missiles capable of hitting California, and you're trying to honestly say the situation is comparable to Iraq? Iraq couldn't even hit Israel. Their missiles could go roughly 160 miles, and that's not even with accuracy.

I have stated all along that NK was by far the greater threat to our security than Iraq ever was, and sat here incredulously as the administration tried to build a case for war against Iraq when the case was absolutely built, sealed, and delivered for them against NK. The global threat of rogue nukes has not decreased one iota since Iraq went down. It's only increased. Especially with Kim Jong Il's public comments wrt having a deterrant be even more important due to what happened in Iraq.

The situation is far different than Iraq. One situation was murky and downright confusing at best. The other situation is crystal clear. The administration has enacted a doctrine of pre-emption that requires iron-clad sleuthing and evidence to be effective. Iraq's case was certainly not iron-clad. NK's case has been completely iron-clad since 1993.

I may be a liberal, but I'll be damned if I don't also have some common sense when it comes to this nation's real security threats. We should be occupying North Korea right now, or at the very least flown an extensive bombing campaign to take out their nuclear facilities. Not Iraq.

 

[RussSchultz]

I still don't know what the answer is with North Korea.

Military conflict will end up with thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions dying and an entire thriving democratic economy destroyed.

There is no good solution.

Truly, NK has us at a standoff like Iraq didn't. A large part of the war with Iraq was to keep it from becoming like NK. You cannot wait until the 'imminent' happens. Then its too late.

 

[Natoma]

I still don't know what the answer is with North Korea.

Military conflict will end up with thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions dying and an entire thriving democratic economy destroyed.

There is no good solution.

Truly, NK has us at a standoff like Iraq didn't. A large part of the war with Iraq was to keep it from becoming like NK. You cannot wait until the 'imminent' happens. Then its too late.

The thing is Russ, Iraq was in no condition financially or militarily to be like North Korea. The decade long sanctions had seen to that. No they weren't perfect, but there was no way Iraq would become a military powerhouse like NK has.

And lets not forget the precedent for bombing a near-nuclear power. Israel did it in 1981 I believe. They bombed the french-iraqi built Nuclear power plant. That was the closest Saddam ever came to being able to build a nuke. I strongly believe we should have done the same with NK the instant we knew they restarted their nuclear facilities and voided the pact signed with them in '93.

 

[RussSchultz]

You don't seem to realize that NK's threat to S Korea has nothing to do with their nuclear aspirations. They have a veritable shitload of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul--enough to flatten it in minutes.

Had we bombed NK in 93, they likely would have retaliated with full scale war. Maybe not likely, but Kim Jong Il certainly had the power. (Or whatever his father's name was)

And that is the difference between NK and Iraq. Yes, we could stop Iraq with relatively few consequences. We do not, and have not had that luxury with NK EVER. At one point (the Korean conflict) it would have led to full scale war with China. After that, it would have led to destruction of Seoul.

At one point Iraqs military was only slightly less powerful than NK, but the difference being there wasn't a thriving million person civilian center within artillery range.

 

[Pete]

Natoma, I believe you're going to find fault with the current administration no matter what, so I'm not going to reply to what I perceive to be weak reasoning on your part. Nonetheless, Russ and Joe have most of my responses covered--we'll see if they're more patient than I.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, I believe you're going to find fault with the current administration no matter what, so I'm not going to reply to what I perceive to be weak reasoning on your part. Nonetheless, Russ and Joe have most of my responses covered--we'll see if they're more patient than I.

Actually Pete, check my post history and you'll see that I've been advocating action in NK since day 1.

Also, it's not my fault that this administration gives me and millions of other people tons of things to find fault with.

[EDIT]
And because you seem to believe that I'd find fault with the current administration no matter what, how do you feel about the problems with the evidence used to bring this country to war against Iraq? The fact that the evidence has now turned out to be false and/or mishandled?

Not to mention the fact that the Bush Administration knew as early as last October, 3 months before the State of the Union Address, that the Niger Uranium Purchase was false? Not to mention the fact that it has come out that the CIA was pressured by the White House to provide anything that would support the case for war, and that's how the Niger Uranium Purchase ended up in the State of the Union in the first place? The only reason it was allowed was because of a slight of hand wrt the language used. The intelligence was attributed to the Brits, and implied that it was true. So now the White House can come out and say that they had nothing to do with it and got the intel from the Brits, thus they are not at fault. That's the only way the CIA would sign off.

So please, please tell me how you feel about these instances. This occupation is costing us $1 Billion per week now. Americans are dying at a rate of at least 1 a day. There are hundreds of coalition soldiers dead at this point, which basically means hundreds of americans. There are thousands of dead Iraqis.

We have a president who went on national television and idiotically told the 'warriors' in Iraq who have been sniping US forces to "Bring it on" because we had more than enough forces to handle them.

We have an administration who simply will not accept any financial support from other countries, despite the outstretched hand that many of them given. $1 Billion a week is what this war/occupation is costing us. $1 Billion per week, and this administration doesn't want any financial help whatsoever from other countries?

Iraq is a complete mess. Afghanistan is slipping back into a war zone (if it ever left) and continues to cost the lives of americans and the american tax payers. Our intelligence appears to have been doctored or mishandled, or both. Everyone is now coming out with estimates that we will have to be in Iraq for another 5 years at least. Generals have been quoted in Newsweek stating that they want to pull out of Iraq ASAP because it is so bad over there.

We have a doctrine of preemption that is now under fire because it turns out the evidence being used for preemption was flaky and full of holes. We have a $460 Billion deficit, and climbing fast. The economy continues to shed thousands of jobs every month. The unemployment rate is at 6.4%. Homeland Security is underfunded because instead of funneling funds to the states to pay for it, this administration gave tax cuts totaling roughly $2 Trillion that affects mostly the upper class and has done nothing to bump this economy along, save for put us in a huge huge hole debt wise.

So please, please tell me how you're happy with the current state of affairs this administration has gotten this country in to? I am really anxious to hear this.
[/EDIT]

 

[Natoma]

You don't seem to realize that NK's threat to S Korea has nothing to do with their nuclear aspirations. They have a veritable shitload of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul--enough to flatten it in minutes.

Had we bombed NK in 93, they likely would have retaliated with full scale war. Maybe not likely, but Kim Jong Il certainly had the power. (Or whatever his father's name was)

And that is the difference between NK and Iraq. Yes, we could stop Iraq with relatively few consequences. We do not, and have not had that luxury with NK EVER. At one point (the Korean conflict) it would have led to full scale war with China. After that, it would have led to destruction of Seoul.

At one point Iraqs military was only slightly less powerful than NK, but the difference being there wasn't a thriving million person civilian center within artillery range.

C'mon Russ. Since when do we actually care about other country's concerns? I mean, has the past year shown the american public nothing but a complete disdain for whoever gets in our way?

And let us not forget that much of the intelligence used by the administration over the past year to build the case for war was in fact flawed and/or false. Taking the actual quality of their arguments and intelligence into account, Canada is as much a threat to the US as Iraq was. Maybe we should preempt them!

And let us also not forget the much publicized documents from Bush in 2001 in which he stated that China could not be allowed to ever militarily or economically challenge the US. Maybe we should preempt them as well since it seems they could pose a threat to us sometime in some nebulous future.

I hope you can feel the drip drip drip of sarcasm by this point............

[EDIT]If we are going to talk about those who are weak and can be easily taken out to make a point or whatever, why haven't we taken out one of the most brutal dictators who just so happens to be living in our own hemisphere?

To whom am I referring? Fidel Castro...

Over the decades he has been just as brutal as Saddam Hussein to his people. Yet he gets a 'bye'. C'mon now. He's weak. He could acquire nukes in the future, and they'd be only a few miles from Florida! Perish the thought! Save us Jeebus the Cubans are gunna have mushroom clouds in every city by the end of the year! Let's pre-empt them!

C'mon they're a threat! Who cares if the evidence for taking them out is fake or misleading. They're the evildoers!

And people wonder why I and others have issues with the bush administration.[/EDIT]

 

[pax]

Although the absurd upcoming situation of the US\west having to buy the nukes NK will soon have on the open market is hard to accept its likely a first step on the long negocitaing process that is inevitable here. Along with checking every large plane and ship coming out of that country.

However anyone with the moolah to buy those nukes would likley be only nations like Iran and Im not afraid at all of such. Its easy to dissuade nations from using those nukes. The likelyhood that NK would sell them to Osama or other terrorists is also low. Itd kill their market sooner than you can say nookeelar.

NK\Kim Il Jung arent stupid. Its not always easy... but like other probs it can be dealt with in the long term and we need to make them feel safe economically by engaging them and helping them to evolve out of stalinist communism. Just like we did with China. Not easy and will take decades heck maybe 2-3 generations but I think its inevitable we'll succeed if we apply the lessons of the past that have worked. SK understands this... we should help them help the north.

 

[DemoCoder]

But real reform in China didn't happen until after Mao's death. If you've got a complete idiot or idiots trying to manage the economy of your country, Western aid will do little. Who knows, if Mao survived, maybe there would have been more Great Leaps Forward.

The West has been trying to "engage" African governments for a long time to, and it has not produced the China effect in their government.

 

[pax]

Weve not tried anything as significant with any other nation after china... Anything done in Africa was half assed at best and criminal at worst with the WMF\WB scams. I dont see why we have to wait after kim. Its dangerous if we do in fact. We can try with him and continue after hes gone. There really ahsnt been that much that has been tried yet. We simply cant continue to let them starve. Its madness if we do. Its a small country and would cost dime on the dollar to help develop vs something like an extended naval and air blockade.

Cultural and governmental distinctions between china and africa are immense. Its much more reliable to compare china with NK than africa.

I dont think we can do another China with Africa though as we simply dont have that much more industry to export... And China still has enormous ability to absorb whats left of our industry.

 

[Pete]

So please, please tell me how you're happy with the current state of affairs this administration has gotten this country in to? I am really anxious to hear this.

I'll reply in full tomorrow, but for now: my problem is you're blaming this administration for what Bin Laden and Hussein and Kim are doing. It's a case of blaming the victim, IMO, only the victim happens to be the world's sole "hyperpower." So hyper that we get to lose even more of our soldiers' lives b/c our "friends" would rather side with a rich dictator than the people who helped them out of WWII. So hyper that people in our own country claim Bush is Hitler and think Hussein is not worthy of protest.

 

[DemoCoder]

I just don't think the two situations are similar. Engagement worked with China, engagement has not worked with other nations. If there is no industry left to export, then there is nothing to export to NK either. Perhaps China, Japan, and SK should be engaging, not the US.

All paying food and fuel shipments to NK does is continue to prolong a one of the few truly evil regimes left, one that has killed millions of people. If you pay them off, you'll just convince them that brinksmanship and blackmail works, and you'll get a years of it, since it is not likely they will experience an economic miracle recovery, so everytime they need money, it's back to the game.

As far as I'm concerned, this is China, SK, and Japan's problem. China needs to get serious about it.

 

[notAFanB]

As far as I'm concerned, this is China, SK, and Japan's problem. China needs to get serious about it.

fair enough, but would US intervention be enevitable given Japan in under their nucklea umbruella?

can someone clarify this?

 

[Natoma]

So please, please tell me how you're happy with the current state of affairs this administration has gotten this country in to? I am really anxious to hear this.

I'll reply in full tomorrow, but for now: my problem is you're blaming this administration for what Bin Laden and Hussein and Kim are doing. It's a case of blaming the victim, IMO, only the victim happens to be the world's sole "hyperpower." So hyper that we get to lose even more of our soldiers' lives b/c our "friends" would rather side with a rich dictator than the people who helped them out of WWII. So hyper that people in our own country claim Bush is Hitler and think Hussein is not worthy of protest.

I don't blame the administration for osama or hussein or kim and what they are doing. I blame the administration for outright lying about the evidence, or "mishandling" it. I blame the administration for starting a war under false pretenses. I blame the administration for gross inconsistencies in their arguments and their reasons for going to war. I blame the administration for gross violations of our rights as citizens of this country (see Patriot Act and the proposed Patriot Act II). I blame the administration for the myriad domestic problems that they either ignore or have made worse since their tenure began.

I've given a ton of examples why I'm sorely dissatisfied with this administration, but they most certainly do not extend to blaming them for NK breaking the '93 pact, Saddam digging his own grave, or Osama instructing those 19 Saudis to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon. Those people/countries would do whatever they're going to do anyways. I can only voice my displeasure with our government and how it goes about its business.

I do not believe the ends justify the means. I don't think I ever will believe that.

 

[Vince]

How can you state that you don't believe in this school of philosophical thought and in the same breath push for intervention on the Korean Peninsula? A move that is culturally abrasive and will entail "means" that could reach several hundred thousand dead Korean's from conventional means alone and potentially be the first time Pandora's let out this century -- all to reach a minimalist "end" state that won't be realized for decades.

The problem is that previous American Administrations didn't preempt this situation as was just done in Iraq. What has happened is that the Korean Peninsula is no longer a Zero-Sum Game like Iraq was and as such we can no longer approach it in the same idiosyncratic manner. If anything, this demonstrates that the actions taken in Iraq by the current Administration, no matter how much controversy is raises and how fervently you argue against them, was the correct path.

Just as I've heard a Harvard historian refer to the World Wars as the "Thirty Year War of the Twentieth Century," it's become apparent with the recent revelation brought forth by the Iraqi nuclear scientist (who was a member of Saddam's Nuclear Mujahedin) that the nuclear program would be reinstated as soon as possible, ultimately leading to another state of re-armorment and conflict with much greater force projection. It's become abundantly clear that by preventing a hostile regime from maturing into another Korea, we were doing the right thing (which follows by your very logic concerning Korea, unless you advocate waiting until a device shows up in NYC).

It can only be stated that your views are inconsistent at worst and ignorant at best Natoma. To resist the removal of a hostile regime with NCB aspirations while it's still a No-Sum Game in which the absolute 'ends' far surpass the 'means' in magnitude -- but then support a policy leading us towards a "Game" that will most-decidedly not have a winner and in which the means (as counted in hundreds of thousands of bodies) far outstrips the ends amazes me.

And then to state that you'll never believe this? The icing on the proverbial cake of bullshit....

 

[notAFanB]

The problem is that previous American Administrations didn't preempt this situation as was just done in Iraq. What has happened is that the Korean Peninsula is no longer a Zero-Sum Game like Iraq was and as such we can no longer approach it in the same idiosyncratic manner.

the problem is that hindsight is 20/20 and what the US thought would simmer down with (what were effectively) bribes has not come to pass.

note: gross oversimplification but you see my point.

 

[Vince]

the problem is that hindsight is 20/20 and what the US thought would simmer down with (what were effectively) bribes has not come to pass.

Ohh, I fully agree with you. I just ask that we learn from our history: the good and the bad. So that we may apply the lessons learned to the world evolving around us. Appearently this doesn't happen when the President is from a rival political party.

Note: Gross oversimplification, but you see my point.

 

[notAFanB]

the problem is that hindsight is 20/20 and what the US thought would simmer down with (what were effectively) bribes has not come to pass.

Ohh, I fully agree with you. I just ask that we learn from our history: the good and the bad. So that we may apply the lessons learned to the world evolving around us. Appearently this doesn't happen when the President is from a rival political party.

Note: Gross oversimplification, but you see my point.

indeed I do. we are also leaving out NK neighbor collaboration leading up to this incident. if lessons of history are to be beneficial we need everyone to at least agree on a impartial version of it.

hmm moving OT so I'll leave it at that.

EDIT:

Appearently this doesn't happen when the President is from a rival political party.

not sure what you mean here.