Military Action Against North Korea

[GuruJane]

Look on the bright side ....a new series of MASH is just around the corner.

 

[camsmith]

I fully support military action if prevoked ala WWII

So you would wait for a whole city to be blown to bits before you would do anything?

Nuclear weapons weren't around at the start of WWII. Times have changed.

 

[Richo83]

Keep in mind that when comparing the US and NK regime, at least the US regime is able to feed its own people, not so in NK. In addition, while the NK people are living in stark porverty, the living standard of America is one of the highest. America spends billions upon billions on weaponry, but doesn't spend too much to feed its own, whereas NK's weaponry and defecne spending has meant that millions are starving in the nation.

While increacing the monetry pressure on NK is a good idea, it is not without consequences. The sanctions placed on NK have meant that a humanitarian crisis has developed in NK, where many NK people live on a meal or less a day. While it starves Kim of nuke money, it also means that the little money Kim does get only goes to weaponry. NK figures are hard to find, but some reports say that upto 75% of NK people live in poverty. That's simlar to Africa in terms of poverty.

I understand that sanctions try to freeze out Kim's regime, and that's good, but like the article from the Guardian in the age today said (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/attack-or-learn-to-live-with-it/2006/10/11/1160246195469.html) there needs to be something other than just sanctions to help remedy the NK crisis. Sanctions haven't solved the problem before, why now? Sanctions simply provide Kim with a scapegoat. Its their sanctions which cause our poverty, its their sanctions we must fight against. Simply, sanctions help strengthen Kim's resolve.

 

[GuruJane]

Well suprise, surprise, to see this mis-information from you.

During the early 90's, there was a signed Agreed Framework between the US and North Korea because Clinton was aware of North Korea and the potential problems. It wasn't until 2002 that North Korea violated the Agreed Framework when they acknowledged their program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Bush did not care or know anything about the potential of North Korea, and that ignorance has led to this current problem.

"On October 21, 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement-the Agreed Framework-calling upon Pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors.

The agreement also called upon the United States to supply North Korea with fuel oil pending construction of the reactors. An international consortium called the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was formed to implement the agreement.

The Agreed Framework ended an 18-month crisis during which North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), under which North Korea committed not to develop nuclear weapons. (See ACA's Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy for more information on U.S.-North Korean nuclear relations.)"

Oh, oh Steph... were it only so simple ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?eurl=&v=7h3GPc_yMCE

 

[JoondalupJ]

The US (and therefore the UN) don't have the resources to attack NK at the moment - they are stretched to breaking point already. No US aircraft carrier is within a weeks sail of striking distance. Why do you think Kim Jong thinks he can flaunt nuclear testing?

If the US were to attack NK, the most likely scenario is China, and possibly Russia giving NK covert support. No other country has the resources to fight NK, it is a militarised state dug in under well defended borders. The only way in is over the DMZ, and an army would be slaughtered by NK unless they were able to engage NK within South Korea.

The US DOES have the capacity to attack NK Oh yes it is stretched in troop numbers but it is very capable of inflicting severe damage or worse with proven high tech weopons the world wants NK changed but not by our war loving republicans in Washington.That just causes more problems .No China needs to enforce regime change one way or another.

 

[- PC -]

PC I did not mean to be disrespectful... just pointing out that sometimes our western bias points the finger at others but is often arrogant and hypocritical!

Many of my posts have been critical of the US policy as opposed to what they ask of others. ... no sweat

be interested in your others thoughts on the following:

IMO it is time for the West esp USA to stop being proactive war mongers and using military force (unless prevoked by the same) and attempting to be international police and a ultimately a law unto themselves. Unfortunately addage "you got to be cruel to be kind" ... ie stepping up economic and diplomatic sanctions will harm the pubic of NK who are already deplorably treated.... but these countries need to have their internal uprising against regimes first and must desperately want and need help. Any action should be unnanimously agreed by the rest of the world, or at least all major players directly effected by actual aggressive acts not potential or threats!

I fully support military action if prevoked ala WWII but not any interference with soverign states that have shown no direct military aggression to the West and all they have done new is acquire a teaspon full of what USA and others have in tanker loads!

Your first para doesnt fit with your second... on its own your first paragraph has merit and can be achieved. Some would say that proactive war mongers and proactive policemen are one and the same.

I have mentioned in relation to Iraq and even now with Iran that as much internal pressure needs to be applied . I do see it with NK, but I feel the people dont have the wherewithal and that the US/International community have left too much time for internal revolt to prevent what is now happeneing.

I would agree on the second paragraph BUT this crazy has nothing to lose. This was why I noted the differences between Iraq and NK..because I never felt Saddam was as crazy as Kim

 

[medusala]

If you let it be known to NK that under no circumstances will there be any military action, surely it emboldens them.

Cant see how diplomacy is going to work. Where is the stick part of the equation?

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

This may be off-topic but
what is the difference between American nuking the hell out of them and the UN doing the same thing.

Why is the UN going to war seen as acceptable, yet a country like America (in Iraq) or France (In africa) seen as bad.

Isn't war, war. People will die if Bush bombs them or Annan bombs them, but if the UN does it it gives people a warm feeling, when they are doing the same as what the yanks are doing.

To some people, there is a difference between these:
1999- Kosovo
2001- Afghanistan
2003- Iraq

1 is bad (Iraq), the other 2 are good, yet wasn't innocent people killed in all of these, infrastructure runied etc.

The choices are either War or no war; no UN option.

 

[Andre]

To some people, there is a difference between these:
1999- Kosovo
2001- Afghanistan
2003- Iraq

1 is bad (Iraq), the other 2 are good, yet wasn't innocent people killed in all of these, infrastructure runied etc.

The choices are either War or no war; no UN option.

Kosovo wasn't a UN mission either. However there's no oil in Kosovo, so the Left conspiracy nuts can't jump up and down saying it's all about the oil

 

[Richo83]

This may be off-topic but
what is the difference between American nuking the hell out of them and the UN doing the same thing.

Why is the UN going to war seen as acceptable, yet a country like America (in Iraq) or France (In africa) seen as bad.

Isn't war, war. People will die if Bush bombs them or Annan bombs them, but if the UN does it it gives people a warm feeling, when they are doing the same as what the yanks are doing.

To some people, there is a difference between these:
1999- Kosovo
2001- Afghanistan
2003- Iraq

1 is bad (Iraq), the other 2 are good, yet wasn't innocent people killed in all of these, infrastructure runied etc.

The choices are either War or no war; no UN option.

Kosovo and Afghanistan involved a multi-lateral effort, Iraq didn't. Multi-lateral efforts are more succesful because the force is supported by other nations and the occupying force isn't seen as some invading country, but an international action therefore its more likely to be supported by the local forces.

Have a look at where America has succeeded overseas, Korea and Kosovo are the main examples, both were multilateral forces. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[dmc333]

Waste of time, must be done covertly.

Infact, here's the framework

http://imdb.com/title/tt0497329/

 

[Fivish_Finkel]

why aren't jihadists threatening violence against NK?

there is no way the arabs could beat the asians 1 on 1 after whitey was taken down

 

[Rear Admiral]

military action by China in North Korea?

Sorry.....? Don't follow.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Multilateralism is just a veneer. Washington wants to do something. No matter the legality of the action Australia is IN with that s**t. That's multilateralism. A 'superpower' and its 'vassals', 'minions', and other parasitic lamprey-like hangers on.