Kim Il Dung

[Tom]

Seems to be wearing a sign on his back that says Kick Me!

Time to send him a shock and awe video, with a short note......

Bush should go on TV tonight and make it clear he has proven himself not fit for considerations, no hand outs this time. Let him know if want to play with the big boys, he will get hurt. Little punks like this are not fit to live. Take this jerk out fast.

*sigh* another Clinton/Demo mess we have to clean up.

[bigmack]

It's as cogent as I could muster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_-Ik98poTg&search=kim%20jong%20il

[Secretariat]

Seems to be wearing a sign on his back that says Kick Me!

Time to send him a shock and awe video, with a short note......

Bush should go on TV tonight and make it clear he has proven himself not fit for considerations, no hand outs this time. Let him know if want to play with the big boys, he will get hurt. Little punks like this are not fit to live. Take this jerk out fast.

*sigh* another Clinton/Demo mess we have to clean up.

I agreed with everything until the last statement. Tom, GW has had 6 years to do something about this and has done nothing. Besides GW talk is cheap. Lots of inflamatory rhetoric, and nothing of substance.

Besides North Korea has been a mess since Eisenhower.

[ljb]

I think we should send representatives from Walmart over there. Then we can offer them most favored nation status. This will scare China into helping us clean up this mess that has been growing for years, long before Clinton. Oh by the way N.Korea got assitance in their pursuit of nukes from our pals in Pakistan.

[betchatoo]

Seems to be wearing a sign on his back that says Kick Me!

Time to send him a shock and awe video, with a short note......

Bush should go on TV tonight and make it clear he has proven himself not fit for considerations, no hand outs this time. Let him know if want to play with the big boys, he will get hurt. Little punks like this are not fit to live. Take this jerk out fast.

*sigh* another Clinton/Demo mess we have to clean up.

TOm:

I have to agree with Sec on this one. Six years down the road it is Bush's mess. Doesn't matter when it started he's been the go to guy (and assumed more power than any president in history) for a long time. AND he's had a congress of his party working with him.

[Tom]

I disagree wtih both of you.
He has done the right thing for 6 years. He has ignored the little pissant.
Clinton conditioned the guy get what he wants by threats, Bush is making it clear to him that he is insignificant and will not dictate terms. We will not meet unilaterally with him - only the 6 nation coffee clatch thing.
I thought Bush was a bad guy for NOT having international support? Now he uses it and he is wrong? :bang:

But everyone has fumbled this one - Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton - this is what you get when you stop a war before the job is done. We should have listened to McArther and finished the job - inlcuding China, when we had the chance.

Anyway, this garrbage has realize what he is playing with here. I think a good response would be a sugical strike of some abandoned warehouse or someting - just to show him what a REAL missle looks like!

No matter what Bush does on this, you can all rest assurred, you are damn lucky it is not MY call! :eek:

[JustRalph]

he hasn't ignored Kim. He has demanded that 6 nations take up the problem as opposed to just the U.S. It keeps Kim from demanding things like cash and food from "just us" the other countries have just as big a stake in this as we do. Why do you guys think that we are the only ones who need to deal with this? Japan and China and a host of others are much closer etc.

Bush has handled it well. That is evident by the acting out now. Kim hasn't been able to get what he wants.......so he starts acting like a little kid. If one of those missiles hits the wrong place........China or Japan might do the dirty work for us................

[Secretariat]

Apparently, GW still doesn't know what to do. Unbeleivable. Those missles should have been taken out in their silos.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-korea-north-usa.html?_r=2&oref=login&oref=slogin

What the hell does Tony Snow mean this isn't a US - North Korea issue? What is he going to do? Wait until they have a successful launch of a long range missle? And sanctions? My God, we've had sanctions agaisnt North Korea for years. More incompetence.

Tom says GW has done the right thing ignoring a man with nuclear weapons, but a guy who didn't have nuclearr weapons we can't ignore. Craziness.

JR says we aren't ignoring him ,and can't talk directly with NK because they might ask us directly for food or soemthing horrible like that as a negotiating tool. Duh...can we say no to things we don't agree with? Are our negotiating skills so bad, that we need China to negotiate for us? Well, maybe I answered my own questions.

[JustRalph]

JR says we aren't ignoring him ,and can't talk directly with NK because they might ask us directly for food or soemthing horrible like that as a negotiating tool. Duh...can we say no to things we don't agree with? Are our negotiating skills so bad, that we need China to negotiate for us? Well, maybe I answered my own questions.


Because he lies and doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, ever! Ask your buddy Bill clinton about it..........he was the last dupe for Kim........

[lsbets]

Those missles should have been taken out in their silos.


Welcome aboard! Glad to hear that you support preemptive military action against targets before they become imminent threats!

[Secretariat]

Welcome aboard! Glad to hear that you support preemptive military action against targets before they become imminent threats!

There's a significant difference between missles pointed directly at us or Japan, and a nation which has a known nuclear arsenal (not a pretend poltical one), and you know that.

[lsbets]

There's a significant difference between missles pointed directly at us or Japan, and a nation which has a known nuclear arsenal (not a pretend poltical one), and you know that.

Yes there is, but the missiles being tested were not being pointed at us, and you know that. You also should know (and you acknowledged it in the previous thread) that bombing the missiles in their silos in North Korea could easily have led to massive shelling of Seoul if not all out conflict on the Korean peninsula, which would undoubtedly have caused a lot more casualties, especially civilian, than a few missiles being tested that fell into the Sea of Japan.

The reality is getting nukes is not as hard as it once was and missile technology is pretty easy to acquire and develop. That is why we need a workable missile defense system that can handle at least 25 or so inbound missiles.

[Secretariat]

Yes there is, but the missiles being tested were not being pointed at us, and you know that. You also should know (and you acknowledged it in the previous thread) that bombing the missiles in their silos in North Korea could easily have led to massive shelling of Seoul if not all out conflict on the Korean peninsula, which would undoubtedly have caused a lot more casualties, especially civilian, than a few missiles being tested that fell into the Sea of Japan.

The reality is getting nukes is not as hard as it once was and missile technology is pretty easy to acquire and develop. That is why we need a workable missile defense system that can handle at least 25 or so inbound missiles.

Our workable missle defesne system has cost billions and only works under prepared conditions. It is hogwash like the super collider project was.

The reality is North Korea has nuclear weapons. The other reality is we don't know exactly where those missles were pointed, but they were launching a long range missle, and it coudl have been pointed at the US, and it could have had a warhead. We just dont know that. What we do know is that North Korea defintely has nuclear weapons, not pretend ones.

North Korea could begin a massive shelling of Seoul anytime it wants. It doesn't need an excuse.

[Tom]

Sec, feel like a salmon caught in a net? :lol:
So I assume you have no issues with killing hundreds of thousands of Koreans - just Iraqis?

[lsbets]

Imagine what the world would be like today if President Kennedy had heeded advice similar to Sec's during the Cuban missile crisis:

"We don't know if there are nuclear armed missiles on those launchers yet or not, but if there are, they could be pointed right at us. Don't worry about the Soviets, they have the capability to launch a nuclear strike anytime they want, they don't need an excuse. We need to bomb those launchers now, to hell with the fallout!"

[Steve 'StatMan']

FYI for folks like Light, this is the time for innocent North Korean citzens, in case they hadn't already done so, to move far away from missile launch sites, power plants and any other key potential military targets.

Of course, since no one knows what's going on in impoverished (on their own) communist North Korea, who knows if people have the money, let alone the right to choose where they live and or if they can move.

But this can't stop any of the major nations with a stake in this from doing what they need to do.

[Secretariat]

Imagine what the world would be like today if President Kennedy had heeded advice similar to Sec's during the Cuban missile crisis:

"We don't know if there are nuclear armed missiles on those launchers yet or not, but if there are, they could be pointed right at us. Don't worry about the Soviets, they have the capability to launch a nuclear strike anytime they want, they don't need an excuse. We need to bomb those launchers now, to hell with the fallout!"

lol...in answer to Tom's question first. Big difference betweeen Iraq and N. Korea. N. Korea actually has nuclear weapons. and you're damn right, if we have so -called surgical strike capability to hit those missle sites I'd take them out. if there are no nucelar weapons in those missles, N. korea loses some missle sites, if not they we've prohibited a nucealr launch that may have killed thousands of Japanese. A no brainer. Not sure why you're so timid here Tom for someone who has posted about nuking Baghdad.

As to the Cuban missle crisis. Hey, Iz, the Cold War is over remember. Russian had thousands of nuclear missle pointed at us with intercontinental capability. What a terrible analogy to compare North Korea's early program to the Soviet's sophistication.

It amazes me that you have no qualms about taking the force of over a hundred thousand troops into Iraq to depose a paper tiger and bomb the hel out of Baghdad killing thosands of civilians, but taking out missle silos from a country that has a limited nucelar capacity and certainly has the capability of hitting Japan, you make a comparision to the Cuban missle crisis situation. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

[Tom]

Imagine what the world would be like today if President Kennedy had heeded advice similar to Sec's during the Cuban missile crisis:

"We don't know if there are nuclear armed missiles on those launchers yet or not, but if there are, they could be pointed right at us. Don't worry about the Soviets, they have the capability to launch a nuclear strike anytime they want, they don't need an excuse. We need to bomb those launchers now, to hell with the fallout!"

These left wing hawks, I dunno.
What are we doing to do with these trigger happy libs anway? ;)

[Steve 'StatMan']

LSBETS points out good points that are potentially being overlooked by Sec.

If a 'surgical strike only' is done on North Korea, they will just send tens if not hundreds of thousands of troops at S. Korea, A.S.A.P., targeting everything and every one within firing range.

I'm would have no doubt that many of those troups are regularly stationed within an hour of the boarder. It isn't that big of a country, north and south.

I'm sure South Korea keeps plenty of troups stationed within an hour of the DMZ as well.

Can't take out those North Korean troops with a nuclear weapon, that would also cause a disaster in South Korea, and impact any South Korean troups that must repel invaders from the north.

Any serious attack toward North Korea would have to be enormous and well-coordinated, not only stifiling North Korean troups near the South's boarder, but taking out any if not all missile sites, nuclear sites, etc. at essentially the same time, since I'm grimly confident that they'll fire anything and everything they can, and send everyone they can at So. Korea and others.

Might even have to patrol the sea regions, I don't know if North Korea has any naval capablities.

Of course, blowing up a Nuclear Plant would likely spread radiation throughout the region, including China, Russia, Japan and So. Korea. The winds will eventuallly blow it across the North Pacific, with the remnants possibly reaching Alaska, Canada and parts of the Continental U.S. West Coast.

So anything physical military actions must be extremely vast and well coordinated.

Oh how I wish we could just make surgial air strikes.

How long did it take for the U.S. to get all our forces activated and lined up for the Iraq invasion? And Iraq wasn't even as well prepared as North Korea to launch any attacks/counterattacks.

Very difficult situation indeed.

[JohnNUtah]

If we get rid of the Dung beetle, we may end up with total chaos over there.

[JustRalph]

Oh how I wish we could just make surgial air strikes.

How long did it take for the U.S. to get all our forces activated and lined up for the Iraq invasion? And Iraq wasn't even as well prepared as North Korea to launch any attacks/counterattacks.

Very difficult situation indeed.

we can make surgical airstrikes. In one week (less if you want to go with Cruise missiles first) we could take out any country we want. It would require a mass attack by the air force and the other air assets of the Marines, Navy etc. In a week we could take down any country, by bombing. The problem is, we don't have any politicians with the balls to let it happen. Concentrate every Air Asset we have on the capital and other strategic sites without regard to civilians and we take anybody we want down. We have overwhelming air superiority and we never use it. At least, so far.........I am talking non nukes. Employ the nukes and we do it in an afternoon. We just might have to put up with some nukes landing in our backyard though........

[lsbets]

It amazes me that you have no qualms about taking the force of over a hundred thousand troops into Iraq to depose a paper tiger and bomb the hel out of Baghdad killing thosands of civilians, but taking out missle silos from a country that has a limited nucelar capacity and certainly has the capability of hitting Japan, you make a comparision to the Cuban missle crisis situation. Thanks, I needed a laugh.

I would love to play chess against you because you clearly do not have the ability to think beyond your current move. If North Korea opened up on Seoul with nothing more than the artillery that is already in range of the city, the level of civilian casualties would probably be much greater than that seen in Iraq.

Honestly, you are simply not a serious thinker. I'm not even sure anymore if you are capable of critical thought processes.

[Secretariat]

I would love to play chess against you because you clearly do not have the ability to think beyond your current move. If North Korea opened up on Seoul with nothing more than the artillery that is already in range of the city, the level of civilian casualties would probably be much greater than that seen in Iraq.

Honestly, you are simply not a serious thinker. I'm not even sure anymore if you are capable of critical thought processes.

lol...you're getting more and more tangled in your own answers.

"If North Korea opened up on Seoul with nothing more than the artillery that is already in range of the city, the level of civilian casualties would probably be much greater than that seen in Iraq."

Thank you for that admission. In other words "if" N. Korea wanted to they could annihilate Seoul and our troops there creating massive casualties. Yet, somehow they do not pose an imminent or grave threat as Iraq did? Interesting.

Perry and Carter outlined reasons to consider an attack on those missles on the launch pad. Now if we went with GWs stated approach which was to use the so-called missle defense system to shoot them down, why would you not think North Korea would then just as well consider that a transgression and start firing artillery on Seoul as if we had hit them on the launch pad. Your argument that shooting the missles down via a defense system will not cause reactive force by North Korea, but shooting them down ion the launch pad before they have the capability of doing harm will is is beyond me. In other words, let them shoot off the missles and hope we can shoot them down in case they've got a bomb. But don't shoot them down when they are stationary.

Your understanding of Kim's mind is fascinating. Perhaps you can enlighten us on his next move.

I imagine your beleif is that if we shoot the missle down over itnernational or another countries territorial water then we are in our rights, but if we shoot it in on North Korea's land then it is a provocation and might lead Kim to declare war. Only one problem. Kim may very well consider the shooting down of any of his missles anywhere an act of war and bomb the hell out of Seoul.

[lsbets]

Okay genius, please show where I argued that if we shot the missiles down with a defense system that would not have brought about a reaction?

Oh yeah, you can't. I used to think that you just didn't read. Now I think you can't read. I said we need to develop a missile defense system because it is going to be near impossible to keep missile technology from spreading. You took that to mean the current system in development. Seriously, can you read? If you look back in the other thread on this topic I said that trying to shoot it down with our current system was probably not a good idea because of the consequences of missing. Again, can you read?

So let me ask you oh military genius - what do you think would have happenned had we attacked North Korea? Have you thought it through? Do you think the benefit outweighs the potential cost? You seemed to think that was not a good idea in the other thread, but now that Bush didn't do that you seem to think it was a great idea. Interesting. Some might think you don't think beyond Bush bad, opposite good. I've said it before, I'm not sure how to handle little Kim, none of the options seem to be very good. Did you read that? Do you understand what I just said? Again, can you read? You like to attribute things to me that I never said, so I really feel the need to ask that question. Is it a matter of not being able to understand complex issues, or is it a lack of reading ability? Which is it?

[Tom]

If we get rid of the Dung beetle, we may end up with total chaos over there.

As opposed to what we have now?

[Tom]

Sec, if you study your history, you will recall the last time we went at it with N Korea, China got into it big time. There is million man army poinsed on the border with S Korea right now. The difference between Iraq and N Korea is that Iraq was never a real threat to attack us directky, but to provide terrorists with the means to harm us. We had already put the Iraqi military down in a matter of days, ans we did it again. We underestimated the insurgency, but not the army. This would be a completley different war with Korea - not a terrorist/religious war, but a real, conventional war, with the oither side having far more troops in position that we do.
Do you play poker?
You should know you never play ever hand, just because a pot is imminent - you play when you have the strength, not dueces.

But warm up the jets just in case.

[Secretariat]

Isbets,

I don't go back and read every one of your posts in every thread. I saw you write this:

"That is why we need a workable missile defense system that can handle at least 25 or so inbound missiles."

GW and Rumsfield have stated they would shoot the missles down in the sky. Perry advocated shooting them in the launch pad. Etiher one will solict a reaction from N. Korea.

Your statement here is:

"If you look back in the other thread on this topic I said that trying to shoot it down with our current system was probably not a good idea because of the consequences of missing."

So if we don't shoot them down in the launch pad, which you do not advocate, and it is a bad idea to shoot them out of the sky per your above quote that we might miss, then am I to assume that we let them launch, don't shoot them down and simply let them continually land where they will?

GW stated today to the press that (a) he did not know where they were headed and (b) he did not know what was on them.

So now you say:

"I'm not sure how to handle little Kim, none of the options seem to be very good."

Well, yeah. That's what the pay GW to do. None of the options are good, but inaction is also an option. That seems to have succeeded this time, but if Kim has a successful launch will "Not destroying it in the launch pad" and "not shooting it out of the sky for fear of not hitting it" be acceptable "if" it hits Japan, Okinawa or even Hawaii.

We show great fear of terrorists, (rightly so), and of Iran developing the bomb (rightly so), but if a missle is launched which might be carrying a nuclear bomb and feasibly could hit the above sites, then the policy is what??? Well, Gw is like yourself...he does not know what to do.

You can keep the insults coming. They are typical of the normal debate approach from the radical right.

[Tom]

Sec, inaction is not happening. The 6 pack of nations is meeting, and Bush is close contact with them and the UN Security council. He is doing everything you libs complained he did not do for Iraq. No pleasing you guys.
This is a totally different situation and GW sees it for what it is, and is playing it correctly. Going off half cocked and starting something we are not prepared to finish would be lunacy. There was nothing much Iraq could have done to hurt others, but Korea could possibly kill millions. We are dealing not with a ptoential terror suppliers here, but a certifible mad man who was trained and coddled by Clinton and that fat dame Albright to do just this very ting to get attention and other rewards. This is why I call it Clinton's legacy - another mess for Bush to clean up. Al Qeda, N Korea, and a recesison, no tto mention a depleted military.
So rest assured, the A team is on it this time, no more dem screw ups. It will be resolved this time.

[Secretariat]

There was nothing much Iraq could have done to hurt others,
...

So rest assured, the A team is on it this time, no more dem screw ups. It will be resolved this time.

Well, to your first point thank you as that is the first I've seen a member of the right admit that.

Second, who is the A team?

[Secretariat]

Radar data indicates North korea was heading for water off of Hawaii.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060707/3/2mty8.html

Friday July 7, 8:06 AM - Reuters

N. Korea missile aimed at area off Hawaii - report

TOKYO (Reuters) - A North Korean missile launched on Wednesday was aimed at an area of the ocean close to Hawaii, a Japanese newspaper reported on Friday.
Experts estimated the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile to have a range of up to 6,000 km, putting Alaska within its reach. Wednesday's launch apparently failed shortly after take-off and the missile landed in the sea between the Korean peninsula and Japan, a few hundred kilometres from the launch pad.

But data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.

North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said.

An alternative explanation might be that a missile could accidentally hit land if fired towards Alaska, the report said.

A separate report in the Mainichi Shimbun daily cited U.S. and Japanese government officials as saying a piece of the Taepodong-2 missile fell off immediately after take-off, strengthening the view that the launch was a failure.

[DrugSalvastore]

I've heard reports that this North Korean dictator is almost certainly the greatest golfer to ever live....that based on the dramtically low scores he's shot and the numerous hole-in-one's he has claimed to have made.

I'm a bit skeptical though.

He is to golf scores what Steve Richardson is to annual betting profits.

[Secretariat]

Seems to be wearing a sign on his back that says Kick Me!

Time to send him a shock and awe video, with a short note......

Bush should go on TV tonight and make it clear he has proven himself not fit for considerations, no hand outs this time. Let him know if want to play with the big boys, he will get hurt. Little punks like this are not fit to live. Take this jerk out fast.

*sigh* another Clinton/Demo mess we have to clean up.

Tom,

A little info on how the N. Korea situation got out of control under GW's watch. I suggest reading this. It is enlightening.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

..The above article is excellent, and here's a blurb from a Washinton Post article in 2003.

"Don't Put The Blame On Clinton

By Steve Ricchetti

North Korea. Pyongyang's nuclear program was built up during the 1970s and '80s, and the plutonium possibly used to make one or two nuclear weapons was created before Clinton took office. It was Clinton -- taking a firm stand, as opposed to the current confused posture of the United States -- who froze North Korea's plutonium production operation. Were it not for Clinton's leadership, North Korea would have enough plutonium to make at least 50 nuclear bombs today."

I beleive it was Rumsfeld's company that actually sold Kim the rods.

[Tom]

Oh, well, if Steve Ricchettii says it, it must be right!
Excuse moi!

[Secretariat]

Oh, well, if Steve Ricchettii says it, it must be right!
Excuse moi!

Did you read the article?

[Tom]

Why would I read it? You told me it was true, that's why you posted it.
I'm trying to get in touch with my inner-liberal.

I understand Bush cannot deal with China and Korea as effectively as Clinton did - after all, he would send Madeline Albright to all those foreign meetings and state dinners where she would eat them into submission! Little Condy can't possibly to that. So I don't need to read it. You must be right.

(although I am nostalgic for Bush 41's way of dealing with them - he threw up all over them! Talk about a launch! WooHoo!)

[ljb]

I thought that was the Japanese ?

[Tom]

6 nation policy! :rolleyes: