|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 23rd, 2003 06:06 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Gosh, Shach, I was just trying to make a glib response.... Actually I meant what you said. BUT I also meant, in response to the great void Vinth that you can push blame backward a whole lot more than to just Clinton. |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 08:56 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
I doubt there will be a war because N. Korea has nuclear weapons. Consider how crazy it's leader is, he might actually set one off. This is perhaps the biggest loophole I've found in the Iraq = WMD argument: I sure hope we would not engage in a war with a country that has nothing to lose and might say "let's go out with a bang". Granted, Saddam is probably smarter than that, but why risk it? |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 08:39 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
"I agree. We'd never be in this mess if that moron Eisenhower hadn't screwed up so bad. " FOr fear that people will take this as a glib response, allow me to elucidate: Eisenhower removed the carefully placed Seventh Fleet, which Truman had positioned to protect what remained of the Imperial Chinese infrastructure, and thus created all sorts of problems for all of Asia when Mao took over the crumbling remains of China will almost an absent thought. This act alone, more than anythign else done in connection with the Korean War, complicated the future of the world in general. Every President we have had since then has contributed to the mess we are now in, though some more than others. I am not exactly certain of Clinton's tie to this mess, but doubtless it is there. To answer the original question, no, there will be no war. For the same reason Japan could not further its attacks against Russia in 1905, No Korea can not risk prolonged hostile engagements now. What Kim needs is to fashion a free market and open borders between No and So Korea. The fissionable material is a bargaining chip to enter into the world market successfully, which he cannot do by any other means. |
|
| Jul 22nd, 2003 11:11 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Hey! I spoke too soon! Speaking from Crawford, W. offers us a great NORTH KOREA POLICY! (From AP wire) " Bush said he believes a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear standoff can be reached if North Korea's neighbors tell the government of Kim Jong Il, "A decision to develop a nuclear arsenal is one that will alienate you from the rest of the world." I'm not certain you guys can imagine my relief. If this doesn't straighten things out, I'm sure I doon't know what will. Once Kim Il Finds out he's been alienating folks, he'll mend his ways. I think it's pretty clear he cares a lot about that kind of thing. |
|
| Jul 19th, 2003 12:41 AM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | the North Koreans are pushing it at exactly the wrong time. | |
| Jul 19th, 2003 12:23 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
- Big John Howard got together with the US to train troops to intercept N Korean ships. - N Korea says this is 'escalating' an already hazardous situation, and they might send some ICBM's our way. - John Howard says, "What, me worry?" |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 01:45 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Some good news on Korea today, China and the U.S. have agreed to work together in approaching N. Korea. China is the only world power besides the US who have carrots and sticks to bring to the table and a willingness to negotiate we lack. S. Korea certainly has vital interests at stake, but not enough aid to offer and nothing besides us to threaten with seriosuly (and it's the threat of us that's N. Korea's principle problem right now, so it can hardly be seen as an incentive). China will need to move clearly and quickly, though, and those are not the two greatest strengths of their regime. |
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 01:28 PM | ||
| mburbank | I agree. We'd never be in this mess if that moron Eisenhower hadn't screwed up so bad. | |
| Jul 16th, 2003 07:16 AM | ||
| VinceZeb | Jeanette, if you are going to talk about politics, you have to understand that what a former president does can and usually does have consaquences in the future. | |
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:38 AM | ||
| soundtest |
Re: Will our lack of a N.Korea policy make war inevitable? Quote:
|
|
| Jul 16th, 2003 12:31 AM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | although Clinton is no longer in office, one cannot discount the effects his adminstration had on the state of world affairs today. | |
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:11 PM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 15th, 2003 10:06 PM | ||
| VinceZeb | Wouldn't have had this problem if Clinton wasn't such a fuck up with foregin policy. | |
| Jul 15th, 2003 03:48 PM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | despite all the increasing tension between our government and theirs, talks have actually begun making progress between N. and S. Korea. many higher ups in their government would like to see this crisis peacefully resolved. | |
| Jul 15th, 2003 03:44 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Will our lack of a N.Korea policy make war inevitable? So now N. Korea says it has actually processed all it's spent fuel rods. That means their radioactive materials are now weapons grade. In all this time we have refused to deal with them directly, we rule out negotiation of any kind. The same President who insisted on a unilateral approach in Iraq insists with equal fervor on a multi lateral approach to N. Korea. We are withwrawing our troups on the Penninsula. removing them from first strike range. I can't tell if the administration is stumbling towards war with a Nuclear North Korea, or actively intends it. It scracely matters. If someone here thinks we are NOT going to war with North Korea, please cheer me up and tell me why you think so. |
|
