1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

North Korea

Discussion in 'Random Discussion' started by deh, Jan 10, 2003.

Advertisement
  1. deh

    deh Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,809
    Well whadya make of this?

    UNITED NATIONS — North Korea will consider any U.N. economic sanctions imposed against it to be an act of war, that nation's ambassador to the United Nations said Friday.

    "We consider now any kind of economic sanctions to be taken by the Security Council as a declaration of war," Pak Gil Yon told reporters at a rare news conference called to clarify North Korea's announcement earlier in the morning that it is pulling out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    In announcing its withdrawal from the international agreement, Pyongyang warned that <b>any American action against it "would lead to the Third World War" and boasted it could match the U.S. in a "fire-to-fire standoff."</b>

    North Korea then added that it would be willing to talk to Washington in an effort to defuse the escalating crisis. The South Korean government called the issue a matter of "life and death."


    Full article:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75152,00.html


    ============================================

    Match in a fire to fire standoff? Wow, do they have underground canyons to stockpile all the weapons? ;) I find the Third World War threat a bit disturbing, threat or not.
     
  2. Jonesiegirl

    Jonesiegirl Guest

    It's all a matter of time deh ... grab our butts with both hands 'n yell boy howdy!
    Scary is putting it mildly for me... :eek:
     
  3. ComputerFix

    ComputerFix

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,953
    Posturing, but there may be "bite to the bark", so to speak. I don't take their words lightly, but don't think that war is what they are after....maybe.

    So far, all action has been nothing but political (take down some cameras, withdraw from this or that, etc, etc). I have not heard of an increase in troop deployment along the N/S Korea boarder. Nor have I heard of westerners bailing out of S Korea en mass (in anticipation of hostility).


    My concern comes from the rope a dope in this situation. We look left, get hit with a right, or west and east, as this case may be. The bolded statement makes me think more and more that there is more than meets the eye here.

    I want to know who NK is in bed with. Not supposedly, but actually. There is a trump card, somewhere, and it is not just that they can build a nuke. That would not intimidate this country (we lived with the soviets pointing them at us for years, it wasn't until they put them in Cuba that we actually got nervous). They are not even following form on this. Have they performed a test detonation? Recalling Pakistan/India, US/USSR, this seems to be the best method of displaying teeth. The paranoid side of me worries that there is another card in their hand, and we aren't going to see it coming. Either that or I read too much Tom Clancy ;)

    My enemy's enemy is my friend. Hmmmmm.......
     
  4. valley

    valley

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,134
    scary? yes. surprising? no. This has been coming for a long time now. :(
     
  5. ComputerFix

    ComputerFix

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,953
    another thought......

    Why do they yell when we only talk?

    It seems that NK wants to pull our attention over towards them. They say "we can build a bomb", we don't jump, so they take another step, and another, and another. It almost seems as if they want us focused on them...........

    ahhh well.......more ramblings.........
     
  6. deh

    deh Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,809
    I know they are supposedly not the best of friends but China always comes to mind. I mean they share a common enemy and sometimes that is enough. IN a bleak and unlikely situation the majority of the world could rally against the US for it's "sanctions" and presence that is pretty much felt around the world.

    I mean they have to know that we can pretty much wipe them off the map right? but perhaps they feel such a drastic action would cause ALOT of nations to turn on us (for some reason China comes back to me).


    Anyways I am not political just worry about me and my family but I did always feel that if there were to be a nuke Pakistan or India would be first.
     
  7. deh

    deh Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,809
    Too much going on at once.
     
  8. columbo

    columbo

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,178
    This is a bid to try to blackmail the United States into providing more economic aid, that's all. I believe that this is the reason why the U.S. government isn't panicking about this latest news.

    One has to applaud Kim Jong-Il's timing though :rolleyes:. A great coincidence that N. Korea just happens to start making these threats while the United States is on the verge of going to war with Iraq?

    Forget love....MONEY makes the world round

    Cynically yours,

    Columbo
     
  9. Mulderator

    Mulderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 1999
    Messages:
    51,022
    I'll tell you what it says. Clinton and his Administration were idiots because not only did they allow this, they facilitated it. It also shows why Iraq has to be stopped now because if you don't, they'll be in the same position in 5 or maybe 10 years. This is also why the US can't treat NK the same a Iraq. NK now has the arsenal to inflict heavy casualties if we were to go to war with them.

    The irony is you listen to the liberals and they'll tell you Bush is just interested in oil. They're big rallying cry is that NK has nuclear weapons, why not invade them. What these idiots don't realize (some realize it, but they don't acknowledge it) is that invasion of NK would mean a 3rd world war. Its too late to do anything about them. All we can do is negotiate and hope the madman they have running the country dies and his regime is ousted before they do anything.

    Its not too late for Iraq, though. Keep listening to liberals and it will be.
     
  10. Mulderator

    Mulderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 1999
    Messages:
    51,022
    Ann Coulter

    Axis of stupidity

    When President Bush included North Korea in the axis of evil last year, foreign policy experts concluded that he was a moron. On the basis of years of scholarship and close study, the experts pointed out that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were – I quote – "different countries." As Tony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained, "these are three very different countries here." USA Today sniffed that there was no axis because, "The countries have more differences than similarities." Koreans don't even look like Iranians.

    Moreover, as the ponderer class repeatedly reminded us, President Clinton had struck up a brilliant agreement with the North Koreans in 1994, with guidance from Nobel Peace Prize-winner Jimmy Carter. The deal consisted of this fair trade: The Clinton administration promised North Korea 500,000 tons of fuel oil annually and $4 billion to construct a pair of nuclear reactors for "electricity"; in exchange, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

    We were assured that the North Koreans had been peaceful little lambs since then. As Clinton himself said of North Korea, "I figure I left the next administration with a big foreign policy win." Alas, he said, Bush had squandered that "win." Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, concurred: "When we left office, we left on the table the potential of a verifiable agreement to stop the export (from North Korea) of missile technology."

    USA Today said that "even critics concede the regime seems to have kept its promises so far regarding nuclear weapons and missile tests." But Bush had botched the peace agreement with his "hot-war posturing" – "a simplistic policy of hubris that alienates allies and inflames problems that can be managed more benignly."

    The principal area of disagreement among the ponderers was what on earth could have provoked Bush to call North Korea part of the axis of evil in the first place. One popular explanation was ... Enron! Antony Blinken, a Clinton national security staffer, said Bush's axis of evil gambit was intended to distract the public's attention from "things less comfortable, like the economy and the Enron scandal."

    Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, took a break from denouncing America's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to opine that "Bush's State of the Union speech was best understood by the fact that there are mid-term congressional elections coming up in November."

    Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Bush's axis of evil drivel was the "rationale for a grossly expanded military budget." Throwing North Korea into the mix was an obvious scam, Scheer said, because, "North Korea is a tottering relic of a state whose nuclear operation was about to be bought off under the skilled leadership of the South Korean government when Bush jettisoned the deal."

    And then in October 2002, the North Koreans admitted that immediately after signing Clinton's 1994 "peace" agreement, they had set to work building nuclear weapons. A few months after that, U.S. intelligence forces tracked an unmarked ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen.

    It was beginning to look like an "axis of evil." The experts had never paused to consider the possibility that Bush had called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" because North Korea was part of an axis of evil.

    With impeccable timing, just two weeks before North Korea admitted it had been feverishly developing nuclear weapons since the mid-'90s, New York Times columnist Bill Keller snootily referred to North Korea as among "the countries the White House insists on calling the axis of evil."

    A week later – or one week before North Korea owned up to its nuclear weapons program – Keller's op-ed rival at the Times, Nicholas Kristof, wrote: "In 1994 the vogue threat changed, and hawks pressed hard for a military confrontation with North Korea. ... In retrospect, it is clear that the hawks were wrong about confronting North Korea. Containment and deterrence so far have worked instead, kind of, just as they have kind-of worked to restrain Iraq over the last 11 years, and we saved thousands of lives by pressing diplomatic solutions."

    Instead of owning up to their ludicrous attacks on Bush and unrestrained praise for Clinton's "peace" agreement, the ponderers once again concluded that Bush was a moron. Bush, it seems, had somehow provoked the North Koreans to build nuclear weapons by being mean to them. Robert J. Einhorn, who helped negotiate Clinton's masterful 1994 peace deal, said Bush's "tough rhetoric" had "unnerved the North Koreans." Derek Mitchell, another veteran of the Clinton administration, agreed: "We did call them the 'axis of evil.'"

     
  11. Mulderator

    Mulderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 1999
    Messages:
    51,022
    This article is apropos (and pretty funny!):

    Saddam's Idiots

    V.I. Lenin, the founding dictator of the Soviet Union, had a pithy phrase for the Western liberals who took the side of the Soviets in political debates. He called them "useful idiots."

    Today we have a new and improved version of useful idiots; we call them "human shields." These are the citizens of the United States and Europe who deliberately put themselves between the U.S. military and Saddam Hussein -or Slobodan Milosevic -in order to stop America from its "war of aggression."

    I recently debated a leader of the useful idiots, Ken Nichols O'Keefe, on CNN International's "Q&A" program. O'Keefe represents something called the Universal Kinship Society (www.uksociety.org) and will be leading its volunteer brigade of human shields to Iraq, where he hopes to make it as difficult as possible for the United States to drop bombs on Iraq.

    "If war starts, I will be in the most vulnerable areas. I want to be out where the bombs drop," O'Keefe told Reuters. "If there is a risk of large Western casualties, that is quite a political liability."

    A former U.S. Marine and veteran of the first Gulf War, O'Keefe renounced his U.S. citizenship in "shame and disgust" in 1999 because, as he wrote in the British newspaper The Observer, "Paying for roads and schools is one thing, paying for `Weapons of Mass Destruction' to the point of insanity and nurturing global oppression is another thing all together." O'Keefe believes the United States was probably complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that the United States has been orchestrating its war for Iraq's oil for a long time.

    Now, what makes O'Keefe interesting is his foolish and embarrassingly naïve left-wing anti-Americanism. You can find people on every college campus in the world who agree with O'Keefe. What makes him noteworthy is his willingness to put his body where his bunk is. And, on that narrow basis alone, he deserves some praise.

    But not much.

    When I accused O'Keefe of grandstanding for propaganda purposes, he grew upset. In between calling me a coward, he continuously insisted that he couldn't be grandstanding for propaganda purposes because he was putting his life on the line. It was clear to me that O'Keefe believes that risking his life somehow makes him more right.

    This is a typical misfire of the intellect on the left: the belief that intensity of passion somehow reflects greater reasoning. According to this logic, I would be morally and intellectually right by putting my body between the police and the Mafia. The fact that O'Keefe is willing to follow through on his useful idiocy to the bitter end may make him consistent and, in an odd sense, brave, but it doesn't make him any less of an idiot.

    This illustrates the problem of the anti-war left more broadly. Every day, various regimes around the globe carry out horrible acts of aggression. But, with a very few exceptions, the international peace movement seems uniquely concerned about what it perceives to be unwarranted aggression by the United States, Israel and Europe -in that order.

    When Saddam Hussein mobilized to invade Kuwait, there were no human shields heading to thwart him. When Saddam gassed the Kurds, the ranks of international peacnickery didn't hop aboard planes for Northern Iraq. Every day in Africa, evil and barbarous state-sponsored thugs mutilate and murder innocent men, women and children with machetes, but the peace brigades do not march in their open-toed shoes to step in front of the blades.

    The useful idiots were strangers to downtown Kabul when the Taliban or the Soviets ruled Afghanistan, but they hurried there when the United States set about to liberate that country and punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

    No, it's not, as O'Keefe and his useful idiots claim, "oppression" or the killing of innocent men, women and children that rankles the anti-war movement; it's that the United States gets under their skin.

    Moreover, they know that the United States (and Israel and the West generally) has a conscience, and they take advantage of that fact. Saddam Hussein, China and the Red Armies of the former Soviet Union would gladly roll their tanks over the screaming bodies of peace activists to achieve their goals.

    "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist," George Orwell wrote in 1942. "This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other."

    O'Keefe and his friends are objectively in favor of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime because they believe he is uniquely worth defending with their bodies. They may be brave, I guess, but they're still idiots, and I'm sure Saddam is grateful for them.
     
  12. Mulderator

    Mulderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 1999
    Messages:
    51,022
    Now wait and see. The "you-know-whos" will be here to tell us how this problem with North Korea is "America's fault" once again (or maybe just Bush's fault). Somehow, every monster and dictator in the world is forced into such behavior by the terrible Americans. Personally, I'm sick of it. How about you?
     
  13. columbo

    columbo

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2001
    Messages:
    3,178
    Good article Mulder. I usually avoid watching CNN, but I wish I had seen that particular program.

    Columbo
     
  14. SyscoKid

    SyscoKid

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,423
    Not to worry, we'll take care of Saddam like we did bin Laden, and then we'll deal with North Korea!!! Damn right we will! Kick major butt!

    What? Bin Laden is still at large and al Qaeda is still a threat?



    Nevermind...
     
  15. Stoner

    Stoner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    44,931
    Hello!

    :) "grab our butts with both hands 'n yell boy howdy!"
    Oh how 'you' talk down there in Missouri. Jonesiegirl :) Here in Ohio it's 'kiss it good bye'

    Ah-diplomacy! I ran ran ' yell boy howdy!' thru the Google translator and into Italian and I got "ragazzo di urlo howdy" and that back to English-'boy of urlo howdy' . ??? urlo had no English equivanent! Ah!! the imagination.

    I hope our diplimats use something other than Google! :)
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/112486

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice