BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!

Subject: One Option, ONLY!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 11:57 AM

The world has reached the place where there is only one option for the survival of the human species and many other species, as well. That is that we must solve our problems in a manner superior to that of chucking spears (literally or metaphorically). We must evolve emotionally and with regard to wisdom just as our knowledge has evolved to where a small gaggle of people can anihilate(sp?) everyone rather than just maim each other and a couple of onlookers. It takes the whole world of leaders acting wisely and with long-range vision.

It both saddens me and scares me that at the moment my country's contribution to that process (if there even IS a process) cannot properly utter common words and phrases, much less think thoughts more than three paragraphs deep.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM

The reason that countries like Beigium and Denmark don't have significant numbers of military personnel is that they don't need them. They are protected by the troops of NATO. Perhaps some of you have heard of it. The US is the largest member and furnishes the most troops.
I can remember very well, back in the 1950's, those times when we had our bags packed and were ready to leave for France at a moments notice. You see, the Russians were massing tanks and troops on the border and the NATO troops (read US) stood ready to oppose them should they cross over.
So those small countries have been able to develop in peace and security because the Us and Britain have stood ready to defend them. They have contributed according to their ability when called upon, but they have had no real need to develop a large military. Don, I hope this helps you understand the role of the US and NATO in Europe and why the smaller European countries seem to be better off than their larger neighbors.
The reasons that Bush would not call for an immediate attack on North Korea are two.
1) the NK Government has admitted to the violations of the 1994 accords and seem to be in a conciliatory mood. Saddam has admitted nothing and maintains his belligerant attitude.
2) Of even greater importance is the fact that NK has thousands of artillery pieces along the DMZ which could dump literally thousands of high explosive shells on the civilian population of Seoul. They also have delivery systems capable of hitting Japan.
Every situation must be handled differently. Just like in business or, even closer to home, entertaining, you have to judge each audience separately and taylor your songs accordingly.
Bobert, when you spoke of the leaders who were killed, I hope you weren't referring to the Kennedy brothers. If you were, may I suggest that you put the sentiment aside and read a good modern treatment of JFK's presidency.
RFK came to the anti-war ranks only when he decided to run for president. As JFK's Atty Gen, he hewed to the party line and defended the US presence in Viet Nam. Quite frankly, I don't see where seeing which way the wind is blowing, getting out front, and shouting "Follow Me!" constitutes leadership.
But I could be wrong. Or at least have unpopular opinions.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 05:16 AM

Taliesn, I suppose it's possible that your point and Bobert's point might not have been clearly understood by all concerned. Let me try one more time:

DougR: Yes. You are right. North Korea has nuclear weapons. So, we can all agree that

(1) North Korea has a monomaniacal dictator,
(2) it poses a threat to its neighbors and to American interests, and
(3) it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

These are all the conditions that, according to President Bush, make it essential for us to prepare to go to war against Iraq, IMMEDIATELY, without waiting for the U.N. or anybody else.   

So...Why shouldn't President Bush call for an IMMEDIATE war against North Korea?

Doug, I think that is a reasonable question. I'd be interested to know what your answer is.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 04:01 AM

(quote)
"Uh Bobert? What U. N. Resolution(s) is the U. S. in violation of? Enlighten me, por favor.

And you folks that aren't concerned about NK or Iraq getting the bomb ...that will certainly ensure me a good night's sleep.

DougR "

Uh, Rev.Bobert? Ofcourse he could always claim to ha've not read my post , but correct me if I be jumping to conclusions ,but
does this DougR response constitute a bonafied *dodge* to this attempt at a dialogue?

(instant replay quote )
"There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think?
DougR "

Well then ofcourse you should be the first to call for Dubya to make a new speech explaining why we must now take immediate military action to "disarm" NK.
I mean the whole world now knows that NK now has "proven" nuke tech waeponry * without inspectors* and has a far more advanced ballistic delivery system to go with it than Iraq aspires to.

Shouldn't it be the logical *real politique* act for you & fellow Bushites to call for the Dubya/Dick "Big Time" Cheney/ Condi Rice/ Paul Wolfowitz/ Richard Perl warchoir to *seize* the initiative and now *make an example* of NK so as to show Iraq we mean business?

C'mon, Daddy Dubya's buddies in Beijing won't mind.....will they?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm really spoon-feeding here ,but a thoughtful response would be , how shall I say ,....*prudent*.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 03:22 AM

Doug, I honestly think you are in more danger from the citizens of your own town than you are from either North Korea or Iraq. North Korea and Iraq, on the other hand, are in a great deal of danger...particularly Iraq, which has been getting bombed off and on, here and there, ever since the Gulf War.

Be glad you are not an Iraqui or a North Korean. You would have not only your own rotten government and a wrecked economy to worry about on a daily basis, but the US Air Force as well.

You and I were born lucky, Doug. That's my opinion.

Why am I up this late? Sheesh. Good night.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 02:55 AM

Uh Bobert? What U. N. Resolution(s) is the U. S. in violation of? Enlighten me, por favor.

And you folks that aren't concerned about NK or Iraq getting the bomb ...that will certainly ensure me a good night's sleep.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 01:47 AM

Well, Doug, I thought it would be fun to toss a few philosophical questions your way for a change... :-)

But you misunderstand me. No, of course I would not invite a known terrorist with dynamite strapped on his body into my house in order to have a friendly dialogue. I ain't stupid, pal.

But why do you misunderstand me? That's the part I don't get. I know you're not stupid, and I assume you know I'm not stupid too, right?

I am suggesting that a paranoid, negative, divisive philosophy of life doesn't lead one to a good place in life, but where does paranoia stop and sensible caution begin? I believe we differ on defining where that point is, that's all.

There are dangerous hostile people in this town...usually people who are drunk, and emerging late from some bar. I don't invite them in, I avoid them. Believe me, Doug, I am just as sensible as anyone else when it comes to normal caution, and assessing the danger posed by aggressive people.

Let's consider the case of the sniper in the Washington area. What would I do about him? Why, I'd do exactly what the police are presently doing, I'd try with all means at hand to find and capture him (or if necessary, shoot him). Sensible, right? He has already attacked people, and people must respond to that effectively, and I'm sure they will.

Now let's take the case of North Korea. Once and only once in their history have they attacked a neighbour, their other half, by the way (minor border incidents not counting)...way back around 1950. That was 52 years ago. The USA has also attacked various neighbours and more distant targets more than a few times in its history, often with little or no real provocation. So? What do we do? Should we attack the USA or North Korea pre-emptively, based on past aggressions or the possibility of future ones?

North Korea is under a dictatorship. Uh-huh. So are and have been any number of countries who are considered friends and allies of America. So? What do we do, attack them all?

What earthly justification is there for attacking people who have not attacked you?

If I were in charge of any country and it WAS attacked, I would fight back against that attack most strenously with all the means at hand, I assure you. But I would not launch a pre-emptive strike against them on suspicion that they may one day attack me! That is an act of criminal lunacy. If I suspected that they might attack me, I would arm and prepare in such a way that they would be VERY unlikely to be foolish enough to attack me. This, this USA has ALREADY done...and done most thoroughly.

The only people who dare to attack the USA are people who operate secretly (a terrorist cell). Those people do not represent any nation in its entirety. They may represent a faction in a nation. Their activities do not, in my opinion, justify preemptive strikes on entire nations in retaliation.

That's kind of like bombing a whole neighborhood full of people in an American city because there's a crack gang operating out of it...or attacking the whole city of Chicago because the mayor of Chicago paid a hit man to kill your brother...so you bomb Chicago into oblivion in order to kill him.

Crack gangs usually arise out of impoverished, desperate neighbourhoods. Terrorists usually arise out of impoverished, desperate populations. What are we going to do about it? Do something to end the poverty and despair, that's what, not further terrorize people who are already terrorized anyway by hitting them with the big technological stick of the USA.

I am not recommending weakness in the face of overt attack. I am recommending Love as a policy, and that's what I mean. Address the real problems in the world...which are poverty, unemployment, inequality, economic injustice, and despair.

That's tougher and far more complicated than merely blowing people up, which is why the powers that be can't be bothered. It's also way more expensive...in the short run. But it wouldn't be in the long run. Not in the least. By "long run" I'm talking 20 years. It's not a job for the impatient or for those who care only about this year's profits.

Is the USA so terrified of losing American lives that it must bully, threaten, and possibly invade any country it chooses to merely on suspicion that that country might at some time pose a danger?

What gives the USA the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the whole rest of the world? What gives the USA the illusion that it is the world's arbiter of what constitutes morality, freedom, and justice?

These are questions worth pondering for some time, before just leaping to a glib answer.

Either a clear majority of the world's nations agree to support a course of action...or that course of action is a criminal action. I don't care who is the one doing it or how many nukes and stealth bombers they have.

Most of the free nations on this planet oppose the USA making unilateral attacks on small countries. I said FREE nations. Think about it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 08:53 PM

You ask a good question, Don, and I think the answer lies somewhere in the mix of the following:

1. The leadership of corporate US is morally bankrupt and is more interested in the bottom line than any of the following: A./ its workers, B./ laws and C./ those entitities or individuals who will have to be destroyed to keep the corporation profitable.

2. The US's absolute *nationalism* in that it feels like it has to win them all, irregardless of the means by which victory is achieved.

3. The US was the first to have the "bomb", first and only country to use the "bomb" and that has to creat a level of negative Karma that has never been dealt with.

4. The US has not been blessed with the level of leadership that it needs and those leaders it has been blessed with have all been killed by folks who had no apparent good motive. Bobert's first "hmmmmmmm?" of this post.

5. The US has a certain arrogance that came with the victories over Germany and Japan that it's older, and more influencal citizens, want to keep burning and pass down to their kids and grandkids. (No comment.)

6. The US consumes a lion's share of the earth's resources.

7. The US, like it or not, is the world's last remaining super power and as such feels like the orderliness of the rest of the world is on its shoulders.

Well, that's a few of my thoughts on why the US "does not play well with others."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 08:08 PM

Okay, let's cut to some real hard-nosed basics here.

If we're talking about the possibility of North Korea or Iraq starting a nuclear war, which we seem to be, then be reminded that the United States has a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them precisely down any chimney anywhere on the planet. Just a day or two ago a brand new Trident submarine sailed into Hood Canal to the Bangor submarine base not too far from where I live. Several Tridents operate out of Bangor. And there are several other Trident sub bases around the country. A Trident submarine can sit underwater off the coast of any country on earth and lob missiles, nuclear or conventional, into the interior. The firepower of one single Trident submarine exceeds that of most of the nations on earth. And the Trident sub is only one of many weapons systems we have. Any country that attacks the United States with a nuclear weapon is asking for retaliation in kind. I believe our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons are essentially equivalent to our other ordnance. And our capabilities in conventional warfare are second to none. I think that every nation on earth knows that to attack the United States with conventional weapons is futile, and to attack us with weapons of mass destruction is to do nothing less than commit national suicide. The doctrine if Mutual Assured Destruction (aptly named MAD) is still a valid defense against such attacks (although I tend to doubt the "mutual" part of that. The United States would sustain damage in such a war, but the attacking country would be destroyed.). I'm sure Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and others are fully cognizant of this.

I would not be concerned with any military exploits launched against us by the "Axis of Evil."

Terrorists, on the other hand, are another matter. Any single person can be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh had some help, but there is no doubt that he could have handled the whole thing all by himself. And according to the news, one person with a rifle seems to be doing a pretty fair job of terrorizing a whole lot of people. Fighting terrorism requires something considerably more difficult and precise that gross military action. And it requires a whole different mindset.

No matter how much our fearless (?) leader tries to convince us otherwise, for the United States to attack some country without our having been attacked first by that specific country is against international law, good sense, and common decency, and it's against all the principles America claims to stand for. To try to connect this with a "war on terrorism" shouldn't fool anyone into thinking that it's anything but imperialistic expansion combined with an attempt to divert people's attention away from domestic problems and attempts to slip unpopular programs in under the radar. It would be an exercise in futility and general silliness were it not for the tragic consequences of such an action. Not to mention the sheer dishonesty and immorality of it.

As far as our foreign policy is concerned, rather than insulting the leaders and the peoples of other nations by calling them "evil," a president with real presidential qualities would be attempting to resolve difficulties and disagreements, not engendering them. We (meaning our government) have the strength to do this. But obviously not the will.

Don Firth

P. S.: By the way, how is it that counties like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, and scores of others I could name have strong economies, get along well with their neighbors, and are populated by happy, healthy, free people—and they hardly have any military forces at all? Maybe we could learn something from them?

Nah! That's just plain silly!

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 07:18 PM

(quote)
"(7) Therefore: Iraq is the Number One Threat. i.e. - easier to whip.

OK, Doug - back over to your side. ;} "

Hey Rev.Bobert. You & DougR. have maintained a cordial & respectful *agree to disagree* dialogue.

My question would be how long of a non-rebuttal post from DougR would constitute a bonafied *dodge* by a Bushite on the issue that , by Dubya's own speeches , he should thus call for the military disarmming of NK to make an example to Saddam?

I'll give 'em 36 hours since he was so "prudent" to launch this thread. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 07:01 PM

Danged, Doug, broken resolutions? Nuke the SOB's. Opps, no don't. Hey, they might nuke us back. Hmmmmmmmm?

Problem is that no one, the US included abides by international agreements. Why? Because the US has wanted to maintain it's "Big Dog" status and not allow the United Nations to gain the strength it needs to be what it could and *should* be. Meanwhile, back at Junior's ranch, the US renigs on one treaty after another, one agreement after another, threatens to attack folks for no reason, huff and puffs, and then we wonder why other folks break agreements? Hmmmmmmmm, Part B?

So now Junior is wringing his hands and pacing the floor over a country that the US and the rest of the world has chosen to ostrasize for the ladst 50 years and wondering just went wrong? Hmmmmmmmm, Part C?

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM

(quote)
"There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think?

DougR "

Well then ofcourse you should be the first to call for Dubya to make a new speech explaining why we must now take immediate military action to "disarm" NK.
I mean the whole world now knows that NK now has "proven" huke tech waeponry * without inspectors* and has a far more advanced ballistic delivery system to go with it than Iraq aspires to.

Shouldn't it be the logical *real politique* act for you & felloow Bushites to call for the Dubya/Dick "Big Time" Cheney/ Condi Rice/ Paul Wolfowitz/ Richard Perl warchoir to *seize* the initiative and now *make an example* of NK so as to show Iraq we mean business?

C'mon, Daddy Dubya's buddies in Beijing won't mind.....will they?

This whole "Suddenly seeking Saddam" campaign has the stench of "Wag the Dog" steaming off of it in order to distract attention away from a drawn-out Afghanistan rebuild and a stagnant economy that Bushites know will play badly in the November elections.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 03:24 PM

So I assume from what you say then, L.H., you would invite a known terrotist into your home even if you knew he had several pounds of dynamite strapped to his/her body. The purpose, to reason with with him/her. All I have to say, is good luck my friend.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:41 PM

Fear or Love, Doug. What'll it be? What would you use with your next door neighbour or your children?

Is the other guy human or is he not? What do you think?

What if the people on the "other side" use your logic, as you have stated above, and say: "If you appease them, they will consider this a weakness and will answer kindness with aggression." This is precisely the attitude that motivates Palestinian suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israeli marketplaces, rather than using dialogue, non-violence, and other peaceful methods to secure change in Israel and the Middle East.

They're afraid to be seen as weak, Doug. And like you, they believe they are among the "good guys" and among those who are being threatened with potential attack by a ruthless and evil enemy.

So how about it? Love or fear? Are we a single human race or are we not?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:12 PM

Bobert: not once did you mention that NK violated the accord of 1994 in which in exchange for our providing them nuclear materials, money, and other materials for domestic use, they used it instead for their weapons program. NK is a prime example of why I believe you, and those who think like you, are wrong in your approach to dealing with dictators. If you appease them, they will consider this a weakness and will answer kindness with aggression. Saddam did it, and NK's dictator did it.

The only question I have is, will Jimmy Carter be asked to give back the Nobel Prize for Peace, since it was he who brokered the 1994 Accord, and Clinton agreed to it. Part of the reason he was given the award, I believe, was for his humanitarian efforts, and his "keen" negotiating skills with the dictator of NK.

Both Carter and Clinton should be called before Congressional Committees to explain why they got us into this mess in NK.

Troll: Well said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM

That's true, Kaleea.

It is humans who tell other humans what to do, the other humans make the mistake of believing them, and the past repeats itself.

When Stalin became aware of the Bomb (which he did following Hiroshima, I believe...), he devoted every resource possible to catching up with the USA. That was a tremendous social setback for the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In fact, the massive military spending by Russia, trying to keep up technologically with the West, was precisely what doomed their system to failure in the end. Ironical, isn't it? Fear results in actions which eventually destroy the fearful...one way or another...quickly or slowly.

troll - Here's my take on the war with Japan. All the involved powers were guilty of various forms of self-interest which led inevitably to that war. The Japanese undoubtedly bear the largest burden of guilt, and their behaviour was the worst by far, but they were not alone in that.

To make a carte blanche statement that American servicemen "died in vain" if the dropping of the A-bomb was not necessary is simplistic. You can't just divide things like that into black and white and say...it's ALL white or it's ALL black.

I find it odd that no one ever questions why it was necessary to demand UNCONDITIONAL surrender of the Japanese??? Why "unconditional"? The whole concept of unconditional surrender seems to have really started with Ulysses S. Grant back in the Civil War...yet before Grant conditional surrender was the normal thing...one fought until it was clear one side couldn't win, then one negotiated a settlement. This was done for the benefit of both victor and vanquished, and usually saved a LOT of lives.

It was the subsequent American fixation on unconditional surrender which stretched the war with Japan out far beyond any sensible point. This was also somewhat true of the war with Germany, although Hitler was the particular problem there, so that is a bit different situation (he was unwilling to negotiate, and no one would negotiate with him either...this was a key reason for assassination attempts by various Germans on Hitler, by the way).

The Japanese knew very well after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea that defeat was inevitable (their Navy had been rendered virtually helpless, and without their Navy they were doomed). It became even more clear after Leyte Gulf. There were strong factions in the Japanese armed forces and the government who were quietly seeking a negotiated way out of the war...BUT...the USA gave them absolutely NO room for maneuver by constantly and continuously demanding unconditional surrender. In this manner the USA ensured the dominance of the most extreme hawks in the Japanese Army who were determined to fight to the last man, woman, and child in Japan, if necessary! Pretty dumb move, if you seriously wish to end a war.

Not only was the concept of unconditional surrender almost psychologically inconceivable to the Japanese, and unprecedented in their history, it also appeared to endanger the life of their Emperor, who was actually a "god" in the eyes of most of his people.

Had there been one iota of perception of the human realities in that situation on the part of the Allies, they would have negotiated with Japan, secured a conditional surrender sometime in 1944, sparing the Japanese total humiliation and psychological death, and would have saved a great many lives on BOTH sides, not just the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That no one in the USA ever asks why it was unjustified to seek unconditional surrender in the first place is quite amazing. It's a form of wilful blindness. The truth hurts, so let's just not ever even mention it, and hopefully no one will notice after awhile.

Most wars in history have been ended by conditional negotiations. When Japan fought Russia over Port Arthur, it ended with conditional negotiations. They did not feel it necessary to go all the way to Moscow, and make every Russian get down on his knees, did they? When they destroyed the Russian fleet at Tsushima some of the Russian ships surrendered. It was not felt necessary to sink them ALL. For some reason, as we have proceeded into what are termed "modern" times the precedent has gone more and more towards total destruction of ALL enemy forces, however. This does not speak well for our civilization.

In 1945 the USA bombed and sank numerous Japanese Navy vessels that were sitting helplessly in port with no fuel in their tanks, and nowhere to get that fuel. They did their best to sink every last one of them. So why sink them? What for? What good would it do anyone and whose life would it save? Those ships were no longer capable of threatening American lives (unless directly attacked, in which case they might shoot down a few American pilots with their AA guns). Yet these actions have never been even questioned. They should have been. And the A-bombs should never have been dropped.

People who demand unconditional surrender of others in wartime are people who are caught up in massive hubris and tremendous hatred, people who don't respect their enemy or consider him to be truly human, and people who simply lack wisdom.

In other words...people pretty much like the Japanese commanders who perpetrated the Rape of Nanking. Those Japanese commanders were a gloriously self-righteous bunch of chaps too, by the way...so certain of their moral superiority. Ah, yes...it's a common conceit of the victors.

And that's why the A-bombs need never have been dropped on those 2 cities. (In any case, I very much doubt the bombs were dropped to "shorten" the war, I think they were dropped primarily for certain other reasons...but we've debated about that before at great length.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Kaleea
Date: 19 Oct 02 - 06:39 AM

Give somebody the DUH!! award. "We" are just finding this out--how could this be? I could have told 'em they had it! How did I know? The countries who keep their masses poor & hungry usually do! That's why the people are poor & hungry--the so called "leader" is spending all the $$ of the people on nukes & his own personal gain. That's why it's fun being a dictator. DUH!!
   I heard some of my fav musicians at Winfield this year singing a terrific song called, "NOT IN MY NAME!"   I wish more people could hear that one. And then there's: . . .an eye for an eye, and another eye for another eye, till all are blind & cannot see." And what about the "ten suggestions" and the one that says, "Thou shalt not kill." Then there's the "golden rule." Gee, if everyone who practices any of the major religions on this planet would read their own scriptures, they would see--in writing--that they are not supposed to kill other people, and that they are supposed to treat others as "brothers," & it is not referring to the way "Cain & Abel" treated each other. However, there has been war since "Cain & Abel." As long as there are humans with their minds filled with rage for reasons they have long forgotten, I suppose there will be wars. Why is it that people can still hate long after they have forgotten what the hate was about? I will never understand how people can claim that any "God" has told them to kill. It is a lie. Humans tell humans to kill. Humans hate. God--by whatever name--does not.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:05 PM

We got the bomb, but that is good,
Because we love peace and brotherhood.
Russia's got the bomb, but that's ok
The balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's next, Who's next?

...Tom Lehrer...

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:35 PM

Doug:

I didn't start this thread because I have used up my monthly quota but don't think I didn't think about it.

I'm not gonna say much more about your guy that I haven't casually mentioned a few times before but he ain't no total dummie. Now that ought to give you a case ot the warm and fuzzies.

No, like what else could he do about learning that NK has the bomb? Ahhhh, like nothin, that's what. And he's doing nothing rather well, as he should.

Funny thing is, NK needs and wants so bad to get into the game and have a good relationship with the western world. And they need a lot of help. If Bush had really had a world view on that dark day of the "Axis of Evil" speech, he could have done something with NK similar to Nixon going to China. It's not too late but now he's gonna have to eat a good helping of crow pie when he gets there.

As fir NK having nuclear waepons? Hey, comes as no surprise. You shun folks long enough and they're gonna get understandingly paraniod and look around at trying to figure how to *protect* themselves. This development is the end result of failed foriegn policies of the US that go back a long, long time over many administrations.

Lastly, now we have proff that Iraq has nothin'! If Iraq had a punch then Bush would be more inclined to exercise diplomacy he's showing NK.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:08 PM

Bill Kennedy, I would hardly call Hiroshima - a major manufacturing center for armaments - and Nagasaki - a major port and ship-building facility- civilian targets nor would I characterize the Home Islands of Japan as defensless.
Obviously, you have a very different take on WWII than I do.
I am aware that popular revisionist history claims that the use of the A-bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender. This, I assume, assuages some sort of guilt felt by some that the US ended (and won) the war with no more loss of American life. I,d suggest that you remember that we didn't start the war and then read about the Rape of Nanking and Shanghai, two actions that the Japanese Government has yet to formally acknowledge.
Lastly, if saving American lives (and possibly countless Japanese lives) and ending a war in which the US was NOT the agressor nation comprises a evil and cynical action, then the sacrifices made by the countless Americans who fought the Japanese and those at home who lost family members may be termed futile and of no value.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 05:36 PM

There was once this sort of concern over dreadnoughts (the modern all-big-gun battleship). The British were the first to launch one, instantly rendering all other capital ships obsolete. It was considered the ultimate weapon. In very short order there were more dreadnoughts built by Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Japan. Then some of the minor naval powers wanted them, although they really could hardly afford them.

Eventually Greece and Spain got a couple each. Russia built four of them. In South America the Argentinians, Chileans, and Brazilians purchased one or two each. All those ships achieved in the end was to raise needless fears and cause massive spending. The Spanish ones were lost through accidents. The Greeks had one sunk in 1941 by the Luftwaffe. The South American dreadnoughts never fought their counterparts, and were all eventually scrapped.

This ought to serve as some kind of lesson, I think. If I were in charge of a smaller country, I would want to spend the money on something positive, and certainly not on nuclear weapons. They only serve to make you a target for other nuclear weapons.

However, there's a lot of fear out there. Perhaps we should take iniatitives to reduce those fears, rather than to pre-emptively attack late comers to the "club". When a dog is frightened, cornered, and likely to bite if approached, you don't calm him down by yelling threats and waving a club in his face.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 04:51 PM

I got nukes. You got nukes. We all got....
Who has them? So far, we know that the US, France, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have them. Which of these is the most dangerous?
Programs are at various stages in North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and who knows? Perhaps Tuvalu. Obviously a status symbol.
North Korea has an aid program from the US, Japan, European Union and South Korea to develop two modern nuclear power reactors. Either we push diplomacy and cooperation, or will Bush's childish evil axis rhetoric prevail and lead us who knows where?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:45 PM

Doug, I have thought all along that when it came to countries with WMDs, North Korea was a far more dangerous threat that Iraq ever was, and if Bush was going to pick on someone, why did he chose Iraq over North Korea? You tell me.

Why didn't I start a thread on this? I don't start all that many threads and when I do, they're usually music threads. I knew I could count on someone, though.

I am highly critical of Bush, not because he is a Republican, but because he obviously has an agenda of his own, and if it's an honest one, why doesn't he feel like he can share it with the American people? I trust him about as far as I could throw him--and that's not Bush the Republican, that's Bush the man.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 01:51 PM

Echo: If developing/possessing/potentially using nuclear devices puts a country into the Axis of Evil, are we at the top?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 01:10 PM

no need to worry about North Korea WE ARE THE THREAT we have used the bomb, TWICE, on defenseless civilian populations, and for the most cynical, evil purposes. AND Bush's handlers would certainly use it again, but NOT IN MY NAME.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:59 PM

What's to worry about? I've had a lot more nuclear weaopons than North Korea is ever likely to get pointing at me all my life, and I'm still here.

They've always been telling us that having nuclear weapons makes peace more secure. I imagine North Korea might have thought that flagging this up now might reduce the likelihood of Bush shifting his invasion attentions to them.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 11:52 AM

Hmmmmm. No, it doesn't concern me much that North Korea may have the bomb. It concerns me that humanity in general has the bomb, and that humanity is disunited and fearful of one another.

As far as North Korea goes, it concerns me that they are in poverty, are isolated from most of the world, and are very behind the times in many ways. It would be a good idea to encourage a rapprochmente between the 2 Koreas, normalize relations, demilitarize gradually, and encourage trade and friendly exchange of every kind with North Korea and the rest of the world.

If that were done, it would become much less likely that they will ever use a nuclear weapon on anyone. They would have much more to gain by not doing so, to put it mildly.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Gern
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 10:37 AM

Let me get this straight..Our nukes, good; their nukes, bad???????? Ironic, coming from the only nation ever to use nukes as a weapon of war.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: The Pooka
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:20 AM

OK DougR, a-waaaay we go. :) / (1) North Korea is a rotten Stalinist warlord state with an economy in ruins, ruled by a paranoid hereditary oligarchy which would rather build nukes than feed its starving people. (2) Their nuclear program is very dangerous, especially coupled with their long-range missile development. The US West Coast may be within their reach. They are probably more of a direct threat to us than Iraq is now.

Now for the parts you won't like so much. (3) Their public inclusion in Bush's Axis *may* have turned them away from, or slowed them down on, the path of negotiation on which they had set out. "Even paranoids have real enemies". (4) In any case, there is this about the current story that is odd: the NKs owned up to their nuke program *after the US envoy handed them his evidence of it*. Now, we are shocked & outraged at their **confirmation that our assessments and accusation were correct**. We are running around like guillotined chickens because they said "Yeah, you're right." Somebody said that owning-up-to-it is so alien to Washington culture that we can't stand it. "You want the *Truth*? You can't **handle** the Truth!"

(5) Nevertheless, despite (or because of?) being so stunned when its WMD claims were confirmed valid (an unnerving reaction, if you think about it in other contexts...), the administration is now emphasizing *peaceful diplomacy* to deal with the situation. Gee! Now why didn't WE think of that?? Yer man Dubya's not so Dum after all! Boy's a genius.

(6) Actually he's so damn smart that he even knows NK has a million soldiers and massive conventional artillery power a short distance north of Seoul and the US military garrison in the ROK. Nukes, pukes: we try to Saddamize Pyongyang -- Disarmament & Regime Change courtesy of Uncle Sam -- we goan' pay a **big** price in lives before we win.

(7) Therefore: Iraq is the Number One Threat. i.e. - easier to whip.

OK, Doug - back over to your side. ;}

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:41 AM

Michael Gordon said that? In the New York Times? So I guess that means we shouldn't worry about it then right?

I'd rest easier if we had a bit more evidence of their good intentions other than the assurance you offer Guest.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:29 AM

Michael Gordon, NY Times, says North Korea has frozen its nuclear bomb program, but they may already have one or two according to American officials. Arms Races
On the other hand, North Korea is busy starting development of a Hong Kong type manufacturing zone, with the aid of the Chinese. Like Hong Kong, it will be kept somewhat separate from the rest of the economy. At the moment, they seem more interested in changing to the capitalist route.
They must be watched, but the course of action at present should be to encourage them to enter the world economy.

Subject: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:15 AM

I was certain Bobert, Amos, Don F., L.H. or someone else so critical of President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation would start a thread about North Korea having a secret nuclear weapons development program, but I haven't seen one. So I thought I would inquire whether or not this concerns anyone. There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think?

DougR