Atomic Activity in North Korea Raises Concerns

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 11, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

     
  2. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #2
    !?! What a hypocritical *******. I'm sorry, but it gets more difficult to be civil when talking about Bush every time he speaks. That the sewege that spills from his mouth still fools half the country is incredibly infuriating.
     
  3. winwintoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #3
    May I ask who Bush is to say he will not "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea or any other country for that matter when he himself sits on such a big arsenal.

    I'm getting more uncomfortable by the day sitting here next door to the US of A. I like America, and I like Americans, I can't figure out though how you've tolerated letting that man take over your country and pull of the c**p he has in the past 4 years and it looks like he might do it again.

    The world is a dangerous place right now, not because North Korea has nuclear weapons, but because G.W.Bush thinks he is all powerful and it's his responsibility to do something about it.

    Maybe it's time he learned that he's not "president of the world" and somebody should show him a globe and show him just how small the USA is in the overall scheme of things and how few of the world's population *elected* him (assuming that anyone actually voted for him and that whole election wasn't rigged)

    I worry about you folks. Your poor are being sent off to slaughter in Iraq, while the rich are getting richer from the lucrative *recontruction* projects in that same country. I guess he's solving two problems with one war - reducing the population of marginalized youth, and increasing the wealth.

    Take care, m
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    Heh. I was just reading a comment by James Carville the other day where he enumerated some of Bush's rationales for invading Iraq: (1) the country is run by a madman (2) who has nuclear materials that could be used to make a bomb (3) and is developing the missile technology to deliver it.

    Carville's point was that two of those three things ultimately did not describe Iraq, though they do describe North Korea. So which country did Bush choose to invade?
     
  6. winwintoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #6
    And all three of them (unfortunately) describe the USA!! Well, actually #2 and #3 are technically incorrect since the US already has the bombs and the technology to deliver them and currently they have a madman at the helm with his finger on the trigger.

    Getting back to Carville's remarks, Bush wouldn't invade North Korea, there's no oil there, but Russia and China might think he's too close to their oil and they have more poor people to send into the fight than Bush does and that's really what it comes down to as he's finding out in Iraq.

    It's interesting that soldiers are refusing to re-enlist and quitting the national guard and others are opting to drive a truck rather and follow the carrot of a "free" education paid for by the armed services. People like Bush will never catch on though. he thinks wearing a ratty t-shirt down on the ranch makes him one of the "people" - well hopefully the people are starting to see through that.

    Take care, M
     
  7. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    and NK has a capable military. any action by the US would likely precipitate Seoul being shelled and run over within hours.
     
  8. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #8
    Only because his advisors said that Iraq would be a cake walk. Guess what, Bush tripped....
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Meanwhile, in the other evil axis...

    Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions

    The lack of consensus on how to deal with Tehran's nuclear program is complicated by allies' opposing views and the stakes involved.

    WASHINGTON — Deep divisions within the Bush administration are hampering U.S. efforts to defuse the growing nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran, a cross-section of Middle East specialists say.

    The differences — between those advocating a tough, confrontational approach and those convinced that engagement on a variety of issues is the best way to stop Tehran's quest for a nuclear weapon — are so strong that nearly three years after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" threatening the free world, his administration still has no widely accepted approach to the problem.

    The search for common ground has been complicated by a variety of factors, including the sharply opposing views among America's closest allies and the stakes involved. Arms control specialists and regional analysts argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could endanger Israel's existence, touch off a regional arms race in an already unstable Middle East and — because of Iran's medium- and long-range missile technology acquired from North Korea — very quickly pose direct threats to Europe and the United States.

    "It's a potential nightmare," said Joseph Cirincione, who specializes in nonproliferation issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    ...

    Although debate goes on about how best to deal with Tehran, there is no disagreement, either within the administration or among America's allies, that Iran's effort to build a nuclear weapon must be stopped.

    White House officials insist that the administration is united on the immediate need to work with European allies to head off Iran's nuclear weapons production through diplomacy. The absence of an agreed overall strategy on Iran means little when dealing with the day-to-day realities of the issue, they say.

    "It's typical of those in Washington who think a piece of paper or another meeting is the answer to the problem," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "We certainly have a policy. We're willing to engage Iran on issues of mutual concern in the appropriate manner, if the president decides."

    Others express frustration at what they describe as a lack of depth in U.S. policy.

    Two experts outside the administration — one from either side of the ideological divide, neither of whom wanted to be named — said the lack of what one of them called a "coherent plan" had undercut America's ability to shape events on Iran.

    "There's no effective policy on the nuclear issue, so there's no coordination with the major powers," said one specialist, who favored engagement. "It's not good at all."

    The other said the Bush policy sometimes seemed to go no further than rhetoric.

    "There are those who insist we keep trying a diplomatic approach, others believe that hasn't worked, so you have the president standing up there and saying a nuclear Iran is intolerable, but not being exactly specific about how to go about preventing that from happening," this specialist said.

    Some blame national security advisor Condoleezza Rice for failing to shape a comprehensive policy, whereas others think those favoring engagement have blocked efforts to produce such a policy in the belief their ideas would not survive.

    Some who have worked within the administration on the Iran issue say the absence of an agreed strategy is distracting.

    "When you don't have a policy, this is where the debate is; it's a lightning rod," said Michael Rubin, who dealt with Iran at the Pentagon's main policy unit before moving to the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington last spring.

    ...

    Despite such accounts, some respected American voices in foreign affairs caution that the U.S. must resist what one called "strong-arm tactics" against Iran.

    "This would not just unite the fundamentalist mullahs and the democratic opposition [in Iran] against the U.S., but would give Iran the chance to leverage Shia populations in Iraq and Afghanistan against us," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Carter's national security advisor. "It would be disastrous for the United States."​

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-irannuke12sep12,1,3042575.story
     
  10. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #10
    I liked ZimV's answer on this.
    Additionally, in this specific case, it would be better that if anything is done about N. Korea both S. Korea and China should lead the assault as they are the parties directly affected by N. Korea's nuclear technology. They are also the parties who would most likely be the recipient of any nuclear bombardment regardless the makeup of the force that attacks N. Korea.

    The idea is to stop, if possible, countries from gaining nukes before they gain them. Going to war against someone who already has them, isn't necessarily a bright idea. I personally, didn't want Saddam with that kind of power in his hands. The power to attack Israel and keep the US from protecting Israel through the use of threats of their nuclear powers.
    Here you need to recheck your facts. While I'm sure the NG is probably having re-enlistment problems due to the simple fact that those who join the NG are simply weekend warriors with jobs and going to war kind of messes that up. On the other hand Army, Marine, Navy, Air Force retention rates are up. You can do a simple search on this very forum to find old posts linking to news reports stating such facts.

    A new story.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0120/p02s02-usmi.html
    The Reserves is the same as the NG as far as individual expectactions. When you join either you don't expect to do much, it is just a part time job. Those who join the main forces know its a full time job.
     
  11. winwintoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #11
    I was thinking of this thread that indicates the numbers are down. The quotes you mention above are a bit old to apply to the current situation.

    Also with the current problems (lack of benefits enjoyed{?} by regular forces etc.) faced by the families of reserves that are deployed, I doubt that many more will be anxious to go.

    If there are sufficient numbers in the regular forces, why are so many reservists being called to serve, and why are they being deployed for so long?

    Doesn't make sense to me and now they're thinking of North Korea??

    'course now that Bush has won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and they've proved what good fighters they are, maybe they'll go along and help spread his "message"

    I worry about what will happen to the US when that many young people return home broken again. The people at home are being supportive of the troops and the world feels their pain, but as far as the reasons for the war, most can see through the smoke screen.

    m
     
  12. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #12
    Special skills, probably mostly those with bi-lingual Arabic skill sets, or those with "actual" police backgrounds. Also, don't forget Bush had to deal with Clintons gutted military.

    N. Korean has threatened to use Nuclear force if they don't get handouts to prop up their failing government. I would hope everyone would be thinking of the possibility of removing N. Korea as a problem. I would hope China would simply just do it, as it would be in their best interest to do so instead of waiting for US to do it for them.
     
  13. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #13
    Just a question, but what would you refer to the leader of North Korea as?
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Just a question, but what was the point of this question?
     
  15. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #15
    a self-interested nutcase. he's just more open about it than Bush is :D
     

Share This Page