Kim Jong

Wagner · #1 09-23-2006, 08:43 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5373632.stm

The US is sitting here worrying about Iran and nuclear weapons while North Korea said "yah we're upping our Plutonium, we need more nukes"

Sponsored Links

motordavid · #2 09-23-2006, 08:50 AM

I agree, Ryan...NK goes from one of the orig Axis of Evil members, to
let's pull the covers over our heads and maybe they'll go away.

We need more countries w/nuclear weapons capabilities like we need
an invasion of angry saucer people.

Wagner · #3 09-23-2006, 08:55 AM

It's insane. This administration has the nation so whipped up into a froth over the middle-east that ye old far east is doing whatever it wants. If Kim Jong wasn't entirely crazy, he would just keep his mouth shut and build his weapons.

AzNMpower32 · #4 09-23-2006, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

It's insane. This administration has the nation so whipped up into a froth over the middle-east that ye old far east is doing whatever it wants. If Kim Jong wasn't entirely crazy, he would just keep his mouth shut and build his weapons.

+1. I fail to see why the administration doesn't pay attention to ACTUAL threats as opposed to PERCEIVED threats.

Eric5273 · #5 09-23-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

It's insane. This administration has the nation so whipped up into a froth over the middle-east that ye old far east is doing whatever it wants. If Kim Jong wasn't entirely crazy, he would just keep his mouth shut and build his weapons.

I hate when people say that such leaders are crazy. It removes bad intentions as a reality in politics. Instead, any leader who intentionally does harm to his people or others is seen as "crazy".

How about "corrupt", or "power hungry", or some other word to describe him. I have seen little from Kim Jong Ill that would indicate he is "crazy".

As far as the Bush Administrations policies, what would you like to see them do?

North Korea wants direct one-on-one talks with the United States, and the Bush Administration has refused to do that.

In last negotiations made with North Korea made with the United States, both sides failed to keep up their side of the agreement. North Korea obviously continued to do nuclear research, and we never built the power plant we had promised to build. So now neither side trusts the other. So will further negotiations really yeild any results?

Either way, I do not see North Korea as a threat. The current leader and his father have been in charge in that country for 53 years, and since the initial civil war which showed plenty of violence and death on both sides, they have lead a peaceful existance. There are plenty of other much more violent countries around the world that are a much larger threat.

Wagner · #6 09-23-2006, 05:44 PM

Take things literally much??????? Glad to see you believe the whole NK wants one on one talks...that hasn't been such since Clinton left the house.

GUINNESS · #7 09-25-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Either way, I do not see North Korea as a threat. The current leader and his father have been in charge in that country for 53 years, and since the initial civil war which showed plenty of violence and death on both sides, they have lead a peaceful existance. There are plenty of other much more violent countries around the world that are a much larger threat.

Then you are sadly misguided. Taken from an inside source, North Korea is one of the biggest threats at the moment and has been for many years... close to 10 that I know of.

Lambeau · #8 09-25-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32

+1. I fail to see why the administration doesn't pay attention to ACTUAL threats as opposed to PERCEIVED threats.

What, terrorism isn't an ACTUAL threat? North Korea didn't commit the atrocities on 9/11. Do you realize how many terrorists we've already killed in Iraq & Aghanistan? Could we have already killed a terrorist there that may have one day came to America to harm you or your loved ones? Was it not worth it then????

I couldn't imagine the pacifists being in favor for military action in NK if they weren't for military action in Iraq!!!

motordavid · #9 09-25-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambeau

What, terrorism isn't an ACTUAL threat? North Korea didn't commit the atrocities on 9/11. Do you realize how many terrorists we've already killed in Iraq & Aghanistan? Could we have already killed a terrorist there that may have one day came to America to harm you or your loved ones? Was it not worth it then????

I couldn't imagine the pacifists being in favor for military action in NK if they weren't for military action in Iraq!!!

Lambeau, I like your single focused fervor, but few here are opposed to tossing "terrorists" wherever they might be ensconced. Whether the fiasco in Iraq is really reducing/limiting/slowing/"stopping" terrorism by the jihad zealots is another question.

No pacifist here, and not sure any "pacifist" responded to this thread, (but I do like your jump to labelling and conclusions

), but R.Wagner's initial point is that NK could represent some serious trouble to its neighbors, eg Japan, et al, and their very real potential of tactical nukes, flingable near the old US, in the future, may be a threat more acute than all the crazed towel heads picked off by our beloved armed services.

Not speaking for Wagner, nor interpolating his ideas, but the NK point is that this former "axis of evil member" as espoused by our dear leader, W, is barely on the talk circuit/press radar scope, pun intended.

I'm not "for" another ground troop anywhere on the planet, currently, as I am pressed to discern their effect other than the horrible affected situ on many of our troops. But, some sword rattling, serious azz embargos and more, may get the weird lil'leader's attention...or, it may not, but that crazy MF'er may have some serious toys to play with compared to your basic sand terrorist whom is working with fertilizer and diesel.
BR,mD

BR,mD

Eric5273 · #10 09-25-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motordavid

Whether the fiasco in Iraq is really reducing/limiting/slowing/"stopping" terrorism by the jihad zealots is another question.

As I'm sure you all watch the news, the Intelligence report leaked this weekend shows that our 16 intelligence agencies and Dept. of Homeland Security think the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism.

Of course, I'm sure if they knew the report was going to end up in the New York Times, they would have made sure the conclusions were different.

Kind of reminds me of the Pentagon Papers.

Internal Classified Military reports are the best. They show you what those in charge really think, as opposed to what they actually say to the public.

Sponsored Links