N. Korea. Serious Issue at hand

[XTC]

SEOUL, South Korea - A North Korean foreign ministry official defended
North Korea's missile tests as a matter of national sovereignty, a Japanese TV report aired in
South Korea said.
ADVERTISEMENT


The footage, by the Japanese TBS network and broadcast by South Korea's YTN, showed Ri Pyong Dok, a researcher on Japanese affairs at the North's Foreign Ministry, saying no one can interfere in Pyongyang's missile program.

"The missile launch is an issue that is entirely within our sovereignty. No one has the right to dispute about it," he said. "On the missile launch, we are not bound by any agreement."

The report did not name the official or provide further details.

The confirmation would be the first by the North, which is believed to have launched at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong 2, early Wednesday morning. The long-range missile failed shortly after launch, and the others fell into the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. officials.

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nkorea_missile)

[XTC]

For some reason, I don't think the Bush adminstration will take this all seriously. Even though we talked the talk already.

[XTC]

Boy Was I Right (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nkorea).

Nothing new since I am a betting man. I should of entered the 10K buy in at this years WSOP.:dance: :dance:

[jamstigator]

Well, the problem is...what can the U.S. really do? If we attack North Korea, Seoul is history. There are more guns, cannons and missiles aimed at Seoul than probably any other city in the world, from fairly close range. If we're willing to sacrifice Seoul and start a new war with North Korea, we would ultimately win, but it'd be a bloodbath, and I doubt the U.S. population would be real happy with death on that scale. Certainly South Korea would be quite unhappy. At least those left alive in the end would be unhappy. I'd rate the odds of conflict with North Korea as being around 5 percent or less, and only that high because their ruler is a nutjob and you just can't predict what crazy people might do.

Iran is a different story. I could easily see us attacking Iran, and doing so before November. And if Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, which is definitely not beyond the realm of possibility, then we'll get dragged into it too. I'd rate the odds of some conflict arising with Iran at around 50/50. (They probably don't have nuclear weapons yet, their air force and especially navy are weak, they don't have a huge standing army like North Korea, and they're causing problems in Iraq.)

[DonnieDarko]

Let's see ..... we're potentially gonna be involved militarily with NKorea, Iran, and in Iraq .... The dreaded axis of evil.

I'm starting to get tired of being the world's police force. Let somebody else worry about these two bit regimes.

[jamstigator]

I read recently that a couple of B-2 stealth bombers have been relocated to the base closest to Iran that has the necessary facilities to handle B-2 needs (it's in England). This could be routine, or it could be that the flight crews are starting to get familiar with flying into and out of that base so that they can be ready to go when/if we attack Iran. Since it's doubtful that we'd use ground forces in Iran, and would instead just use our air and naval superiority against them, there won't be a whole lot of indicators of an impending attack (like giant ships traversing the oceans laden with tanks and troops), but B-2 relocation is potentially one indicator that preparations are now underway. Another one would be carrier groups edging closer to Iran, which so far as I know isn't happening yet, but since that can happen in a matter of days, that's something they'd leave until the final week or two.

If we are going to attack Iran, it'll probably happen in October, shortly before the mid-term elections. This would allow Bush, Inc. to televise footage of obliterated nuclear research facilities and the like, which would probably help the Repugnicans do better in November.

[Marlboroman]

I think Iran is imminent.

I saw a documentary on the Military channel about WW2 and the battle plans used.

The reason the US is building so many bases in Iraq is to change the factor known as the Force Ratio.

In a nut shell its the ability to provide force more effectivly than the enemy.

Putting air bases so close to Iran decreases refuel and rearm times on jets, and cuts react times. Also increases the likelyhood that pilots will be recovered if shot down over Iraq airspace.

I really dont see the difference between what we are doing and what other invaders have done thru history. Take your pick of conquerers, the US is doing the same thing.

Relate this to WW2, Iraq is poland, Iran is France and North Korea is Great Britain, the US part in WW2 to be played by China.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[graymatter]

Relate this to WW2, Iraq is poland, Iran is France and North Korea is Great Britain, the US part in WW2 to be played by China.


I agree, the drama in Gaza has been planned to link Iran even closer to Hammas. We're essentially using the Jews to make the case for invading Iran.

[Marlboroman]

I agree, the drama in Gaza has been planned to link Iran even closer to Hammas. We're essentially using the Jews to make the case for invading Iran.

Ya it gets scary real fast dont it :eek:

What really brings it home for me and what we will be up against should the US continue this path, is China's space program.

I know that sounds a bit out of wack but hear me out.

At the start of the cold war there was a huge race to the moon, then allot of the technology was then used in a military fashion in the arms race with Russia under Reagan.

To be blunt about it, China's space program makes the US look like a bottle rocket and a plastic space man taped on the top.

Nough said.

[Great Spirit]

Funny how Bush will invade Iraq when they had nothing to defend themselves with, but North Korea has publically threatened the US with nukes if it attacks them and Bush will not invade them.

Eh its common sense for bullies to go after the weaker prey.

[icebelowfreeze]

yeah this war in Iran/ Iraq/ Afgan has lasted longer then world war 2 and the death toll on both sides are happening daily. Plus On every News Station that was talking about our defence system and intercepting the missle's said we'd have less then 50% chance of even intercepting especially more then one of there bigger missles, ouch.. I Really Hope we Can talk b4 we start a nuclear war. Plus These Bastards there are Counterfitting are money.

"We Must Work Together To Convince N.Korea To Give Up There Nuclear Program"
BUSH

[Binzhoubum]

Funny how Bush will invade Iraq when they had nothing to defend themselves with, but North Korea has publically threatened the US with nukes if it attacks them and Bush will not invade them.

Eh its common sense for bullies to go after the weaker prey.


North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than Iraq.

If we invade North Korea, it will make China, South Korean and Japan worried and paranoid. And probably a little pissed off...especially if Bush is in office because we couldn't go into that one unilaterally. :smokin:

No one seems to care about the well-being of the Middle East, but Asia (especially Northeast Asia) is much more important to America for business and technology than Iraq ever could be....we can't just go in bombs-a-dropping and guns-a-blazing into North Korea because of the potential retaliation and destruction of key economic and development areas.

Plus, who knows what China would do? They might be waiting for this war because North Korea has the world's third largest army...and I believe China has the world's first largest...maybe they have a secret pact to ally and take on the Americans together...in which case America is screwed for a long time...

Either way...I live about four hours from North Korea...and I am not too worried about it...

Just stoned....:stoned:

[graymatter]

North Korea is a much more sensitive issue than Iraq.

If we invade North Korea, it will make China, South Korean and Japan worried and paranoid. And probably a little pissed off...especially if Bush is in office because we couldn't go into that one unilaterally. :smokin:

No one seems to care about the well-being of the Middle East, but Asia (especially Northeast Asia) is much more important to America for business and technology than Iraq ever could be....we can't just go in bombs-a-dropping and guns-a-blazing into North Korea because of the potential retaliation and destruction of key economic and development areas.

Plus, who knows what China would do? They might be waiting for this war because North Korea has the world's third largest army...and I believe China has the world's first largest...maybe they have a secret pact to ally and take on the Americans together...in which case America is screwed for a long time...

Either way...I live about four hours from North Korea...and I am not too worried about it...

Just stoned....:stoned:

I wouldn't be worried, either. The military options are zero, so even the most chicken-hawkish of chicken hawks rule it out. I disagree about the importance of economics; oil and regional stability seem more fundamental than buiness in asia...

[Fengzi]

I wouldn't be worried, either. The military options are zero, so even the most chicken-hawkish of chicken hawks rule it out. I disagree about the importance of economics; oil and regional stability seem more fundamental than buiness in asia...

I agree with Binzhou on this one. It comes down to a question not so much of "what do we have to gain?" but "what do we have to lose?". If we fuck up in the Middle East we come home and leave the desert the way it was-fucked up. Sure there is the oil issue but out of the top five countries that the U.S. imports oil from, only one is in the Mid-East. That is Saudi Arabia and, unless the shit seriously hits the fan, ther's not much to worry about there. East Asia, on the other hand, is a different story all together. If we fuck up there and Tokyo and Soeul get nuked, not only would it be disastrous on a humanitarian level but the potential impact to the entire world's economy would be unimaginable.

As far as China is concerned, my guess is that they would sit it out or even potenatially ally with the U.S. China doesn't really view the DPRK as their communist brother. It's more like a fucked-up distant cousin that you'd rather forget and who doesn't get invited to family functions. Ultimately, China would have a lot more to gain by siding with the U.S.. Again it's a question of "what is there to lose?". Allying with N Korea would set them way back. I think it would really come down to who started it. If N Korea started it, China just might smack 'em down for screwing up regional stability. If we were to pull an Iraq, however, ignoring the rest of the world's opinion and charging ahead yelling "Don't mess with Texas" , well then.. like Bizhou said "who knows what China would do?" .

[Binzhoubum]

I agree with Binzhou on this one. It comes down to a question not so much of "what do we have to gain?" but "what do we have to lose?". If we fuck up in the Middle East we come home and leave the desert the way it was-fucked up. Sure there is the oil issue but out of the top five countries that the U.S. imports oil from, only one is in the Mid-East. That is Saudi Arabia and, unless the shit seriously hits the fan, ther's not much to worry about there. East Asia, on the other hand, is a different story all together. If we fuck up there and Tokyo and Soeul get nuked, not only would it be disastrous on a humanitarian level but the potential impact to the entire world's economy would be unimaginable.

As far as China is concerned, my guess is that they would sit it out or even potenatially ally with the U.S. China doesn't really view the DPRK as their communist brother. It's more like a fucked-up distant cousin that you'd rather forget and who doesn't get invited to family functions. Ultimately, China would have a lot more to gain by siding with the U.S.. Again it's a question of "what is there to lose?". Allying with N Korea would set them way back. I think it would really come down to who started it. If N Korea started it, China just might smack 'em down for screwing up regional stability. If we were to pull an Iraq, however, ignoring the rest of the world's opinion and charging ahead yelling "Don't mess with Texas" , well then.. like Bizhou said "who knows what China would do?" .

Exactly...and I think YOU know that China is all about business these days.

They would NEVER screw themselves out of a sweet deal with the rest of the world...at least the ones who are currently in power... :smokin:

:D I am glad we agree, fengzi.

东北人!

[graymatter]

OK, North Korea is in a desperate state, but won't nuke anyone. If they do then the U.S. should have sense enough to let China handle things, which they should be doing in the first place.

One of China's fundamental interests is also in oil... The bigger the country and the economy, the greater the demand. It doesn't matter whether business in Asia is more important than business with Iraq. None of it gets done without a reliable and secure middle east.

And for the record, I'm not saying U.S. policy is heading us in the direction of reliable and secure... quite the opposite, actually.

[Maggz]

Funny how Bush will invade Iraq when they had nothing to defend themselves with, but North Korea has publically threatened the US with nukes if it attacks them and Bush will not invade them.

Eh its common sense for bullies to go after the weaker prey.

Kim jong il is a lowlife, but whoever thinks Saddam's regime was "DEFENSELESS" needs to check their facts. If we attacked KIM JONG IL's regime instead of Saddam's, there would be no difference in the outrage with all these antiwar people.

Saddam did WHAT with the weapons HE possessed? Not only did he hide them from the UN (and most likely sold many of them), but he killed over a half a million of his OWN PEOPLE ... dont you think that's a little worse than a missile test-firing ?

Plus, I dont recall KIM JONG IL sending assassians to the United States to kill the president.

What I'm trying to say is Saddam n his regime were not defenesless and helpless, they DID have major problems with America for YEARS, and if we went off to attack Kim Jong Il's regime rather than Saddams.... you would be hearing the same complaints and the "WHAT DID HE DO" bullshit from the anti-war crowd as we are all hearing now from Iraq.

[graymatter]

Kim jong il is a lowlife, but whoever thinks Saddam's regime was "DEFENSELESS" needs to check their facts. If we attacked KIM JONG IL's regime instead of Saddam's, there would be no difference in the outrage with all these antiwar people.

Saddam did WHAT with the weapons HE possessed? Not only did he hide them from the UN (and most likely sold many of them), but he killed over a half a million of his OWN PEOPLE ... dont you think that's a little worse than a missile test-firing ?

Plus, I dont recall KIM JONG IL sending assassians to the United States to kill the president.

What I'm trying to say is Saddam n his regime were not defenesless and helpless, they DID have major problems with America for YEARS, and if we went off to attack Kim Jong Il's regime rather than Saddams.... you would be hearing the same complaints and the "WHAT DID HE DO" bullshit from the anti-war crowd as we are all hearing now from Iraq.

I don't believe the U.S. gives a rats ass about the PEOPLE of other countries. If the criteria for going to war was to throw out brutal leaders, then why aren't we landing Normandy levels of troops to the Sudan? And at least Sadam was contained under Clinton and early GW, which left him about as threatening to U.S. security as Fidel Castro.

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is Hell!" --William Tecumseh Sherman

[Fengzi]

OK, North Korea is in a desperate state, but won't nuke anyone. If they do then the U.S. should have sense enough to let China handle things, which they should be doing in the first place.

One of China's fundamental interests is also in oil... The bigger the country and the economy, the greater the demand. It doesn't matter whether business in Asia is more important than business with Iraq. None of it gets done without a reliable and secure middle east.

And for the record, I'm not saying U.S. policy is heading us in the direction of reliable and secure... quite the opposite, actually.

China's handling of North Korea is probably a tougher issue for them then our handling of North Korea is for us. What China ultimately wants is stability and to continue it's economic growth. The absolute last thing they want to see is a conflict between the North Korea and the U.S/ ROK. Beyond the strain it could put on U.S.-China relations, China would also be faced with millions of refugees fleeing across the border. China already has an illegal alien issue with North Korea, similar to what the U.S. has with Mexico. We all know how bad that is and what a strain it puts on our economy. Now multiply that by thousands and put it into an economy not as strong as the U.S.' and you get the picture.

The biggest problem China has in controlling the DPRK is that they can't outwardly appear to be controlling them. Whether it is true or not, North Korea sees China as an ally, or at least a neutral party in the situation. North Korea feels somewhat safe having China next door. If, however, China appears to be siding with the U.S., then North Korea would feel isolated. And, if North Korea feels truly isolated, surrounded by enemies on all sides, who knows what they will do. It might just whip them into shape. On the other hand, they may lash out like a cornered animal. Kim Jong Il is one of the wacko dictator types that can't be predicted to act rationally. You mention that "North Korea is in a desperate state, but won't nuke anyone" probably not now, but most experts agree that if it really came down to it, Kim Jong Il would probably launch his nukes, if not in self defense then out of spite. After all, what does he have to lose?

Incidentally, North Korea gets all of it's oil from China. So yeah, oil is an issue everywhere.

[Fengzi]

I don't believe the U.S. gives a rats ass about the PEOPLE of other countries. If the criteria for going to war was to throw out brutal leaders, then why aren't we landing Normandy levels of troops to the Sudan? And at least Sadam was contained under Clinton and early GW, which left him about as threatening to U.S. security as Fidel Castro.


Got to agree 100%. We only care when it is in our best interests and, as a general rule, it's not in our best interests to care about the people of assorted, rat infested, 3rd world countries. Unless they have oil that is.

[Binzhoubum]

China's handling of North Korea is probably a tougher issue for them then our handling of North Korea is for us. What China ultimately wants is stability and to continue it's economic growth. The absolute last thing they want to see is a conflict between the North Korea and the U.S/ ROK. Beyond the strain it could put on U.S.-China relations, China would also be faced with millions of refugees fleeing across the border. China already has an illegal alien issue with North Korea, similar to what the U.S. has with Mexico. We all know how bad that is and what a strain it puts on our economy. Now multiply that by thousands and put it into an economy not as strong as the U.S.' and you get the picture.

The biggest problem China has in controlling the DPRK is that they can't outwardly appear to be controlling them. Whether it is true or not, North Korea sees China as an ally, or at least a neutral party in the situation. North Korea feels somewhat safe having China next door. If, however, China appears to be siding with the U.S., then North Korea would feel isolated. And, if North Korea feels truly isolated, surrounded by enemies on all sides, who knows what they will do. It might just whip them into shape. On the other hand, they may lash out like a cornered animal. Kim Jong Il is one of the wacko dictator types that can't be predicted to act rationally. You mention that "North Korea is in a desperate state, but won't nuke anyone" probably not now, but most experts agree that if it really came down to it, Kim Jong Il would probably launch his nukes, if not in self defense then out of spite. After all, what does he have to lose?

Incidentally, North Korea gets all of it's oil from China. So yeah, oil is an issue everywhere.

I agree with everything you just said...

AND I think that everyone should also remember that when North Korea pulls stunts like they did a couple days ago it makes Japan and South Korea step up military strength and spending.

The LAST thing China wants to see is Japan increasing the strength of their army. This could lead to trouble between Japan and China...

:smokin:

[Fengzi]

The LAST thing China wants to see is Japan increasing the strength of their army. This could lead to trouble between Japan and China...

:smokin:

True, true. Lots of bad blood there. I imagine a lot of the Laoren in your neck of the woods can remember when the flag flying outside had the rising sun on it. Chinese don't like the Japanese much.

Funny thing, when I first met my in-laws they were a bit hesitant about their daughter marrying a foriegner. At first they actually forbid it but then they got to me meet me and realized that I wasn't a total barbarian. So, it was ok that their daughter married an American. My Mother in-law did mention, however, that if I was Japanese there would have been no way in hell that I'd marry her daughter.