Politics North Korea May Be Preparing Missile Launch

[KissStephanie]

How much of a problem is North Korea now? Certainly more than Iraq ever was, and the action in Iraq has led to the current problems in Iran too. If North Korean missiles can reach the US, then they can certainly reach Australia too of course...

North Korea May Be Preparing Missile Launch

By George Nishiyama

TOKYO (Reuters) - North Korea may be preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile that could reach parts of the United States, Japanese media reports said on Friday, but Japan's government said it did not believe a launch was imminent.

 

[TheBloods]

North Korea is a huge problem, benefiting from half a century of support and protection under the umbrella of either the USSR and China, allowing them to build nuclear-capable missiles in their despotic, bellicose, and bankrupt regime.

 

[camsmith]

Doubt it. ( I dont trust sentances like this.. "Quoting unidentified South Korean government officials")

Even if they had it, they would be out of their mind to launch it themselves, they could however pass into onto the likes of Iran etc..

 

[dan warna]

definately NK is one example of the orwellian nightmare

 

[freo heave ho]

Is it North Korean brinkmanship season already?

Do they want more aid again?

 

[Richo83]

Amnesty international calls North Korea (and I quote) "A massive an continuous labour camp."

Why doesn't America do something about this country? Now this is a coountry that truly needs regime change. Kim Jong Il is one disturbed and dangerous leader.

 

[TheBloods]

What can the US do?

There is obviously the nuclear issue plus IIRC NK has B&C weapons too.

More importantly, China has been a protective force for NK.

 

[FuManchu]

What can the US do?

There is obviously the nuclear issue plus IIRC NK has B&C weapons too.

More importantly, China has been a protective force for NK.

well, if they applied the same standards that they "said" they applied to Iraq, they would invade, after all, Iraq was about state sponsored terrorism which NK certainly advocates and practices and it was about regime change which NK could stand to have.

But the good ol' US of A will pick and choose which fight they fight dependant on how many barrels of oil lie underneath the regime that needs changing

 

[TheBloods]

well, if they applied the same standards that they "said" they applied to Iraq, they would invade,

Nuclear weapons.
China.

 

[FuManchu]

Nuclear weapons.
China.

we know why they wont apply the same standards

what we want to know is why they just dont tell the real story when acting on behalf of their own national interests.

if they said they are going invade such and such for oil, I'd say fair enuf, at least you're honest. But the pretence they use is that transparently false, why even bother?

 

[utility]

NK will continue to be a thorny problem while China supports it.

Of course we love China so much because they buy our natural resources.

 

[TheBloods]

Given they have had troops in South Korea and the region for half a century and any danger to Japan would rebound on the rest of the world, plus now there is talk that the North Korean missile could reach the US, then I think you can say that the US has strategic interests on the Korean peninsular.

As for China, what else do you propose is done?

 

[- PC -]

Even if they had it, they would be out of their mind to launch it themselves,

Excuse me cam, may I ask what the fear is then of Iran launching one ? I mean ''Iran would have to be out of their mind''

 

[- PC -]

Given they have had troops in South Korea and the region for half a century and any danger to Japan would rebound on the rest of the world, plus now there is talk that the North Korean missile could reach the US, then I think you can say that the US has strategic interests on the Korean peninsular.

So what difference is there if you replace NK with Iran?

ie

Given they have had troops in Saudi Arabia and the region for half a century and any danger to The Oil Region would rebound on the rest of the world, plus now there is talk that the Iranian missile could reach the US, then I think you can say that the US has strategic interests on the Arabian peninsular.

 

[Richo83]

What can the US do?

There is obviously the nuclear issue plus IIRC NK has B&C weapons too.

More importantly, China has been a protective force for NK.

Something, anything. Go to the UN, put a trade embargo with the country, say to China if they want to trade, then stop protecting Kim. Recently I watched a doco on N. Korea, basically it is a country of starving persecuted people who try and escape. Once they do escape, they get killed by the Chinese government for being illegal immigrants. The whole country is in a state of disorder and chaos. A failed state if I ever saw one.

My optimist belief was that the world would do something to save the Koreans. Anything. Maybe I should stop being such an optimist and realise that certain countries can't be saved, after all, they don't fit in with their national interest do they?

 

[TheBloods]

So what difference is there if you replace NK with Iran?

I'm not quite sure of your question. The US has strategic interests in the Middle East.

 

[TheBloods]

Something, anything. Go to the UN, put a trade embargo with the country, say to China if they want to trade, then stop protecting Kim. Recently I watched a doco on N. Korea, basically it is a country of starving persecuted people who try and escape. Once they do escape, they get killed by the Chinese government for being illegal immigrants. The whole country is in a state of disorder and chaos. A failed state if I ever saw one.

My optimist belief was that the world would do something to save the Koreans. Anything. Maybe I should stop being such an optimist and realise that certain countries can't be saved, after all, they don't fit in with their national interest do they?

Embargoes have been in place against NK on and off for years. The country is bankrupt. Makes little difference, particularly if they can still get support from China.

What else do you suggest the rest of the world do?

 

[dan warna]

I'm not quite sure of your question. The US has strategic interests in the Middle East.

rough translation = its ok to be a dictator/rular/shah/royal family and ignore/subjugate/torture/oppress/practice sharia law as long as you do what we tell you to do and sell your oil to us?

 

[- PC -]

I'm not quite sure of your question..

Just amused that the spin you put on the NK situation can also apply to the Iran situation

Iran , who are not even close to developing nuclear weapons seem to be the current bad boys and North Korea who DO have the technology and the crazy in power are not

Isnt that a tad hypocritical of the US and of yourself?

 

[milo]

Why doesn't America do something about this country?

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Peanuts like you will be the first to get narky if they did do anything.

 

[Richo83]

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Peanuts like you will be the first to get narky if they did do anything.

I would support America 100% just like I did with Kosovo and Afghanistan. Two missions by the US which were reasonably sucessful

Afghnistan:

1. Get rid of the taliban Check.
2. Disperse and damage (Just try and break the stronghold Taliban had with Al-Qaeda had there. Growing, but never as strong) Al-Qaeda facilities in al-Qaeda
3. Get Osama Hmmm.

Well two out of three aint bad as they saying goes.

Kosovo

1. By bombing, being an ulitmateum to the rebel forces to stop fighting. Check
2. Try and bring stability to the region. Check.
3. Bring independance and safety to the region.
Check.

I'm all for US missions which are for the right reasons and are done in a proper manner. The Balkans after the 90s has flourished as an area. Croatia is growing as a country, Bosnia is establishing itself as a state, refugee problems aren't a problem as they used to be.

Thing is with Iraq, the reasoning and execution were horrible.

1. Get rid of WMD (There was none.)
2. Destroy the links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam. (There was none.)
3. Stop Saddam aquiring nuclear weapons (Since the SCUD launches on Israel, there was little to no evidence Hussein had or was trying to aquire nuclear weapons.

No exit strategy, quagmire. I will support America when it enacts regime change that is needed. Kim Jong Il tells the world he was nuclear weapons, weapons that have capacity to cause mass destruction. His government IS a state run terrorist cell, the worst run government in the world. Kim Kong Il is worse than Saddam because at least Saddam was discriminatory in who he killed (Roughly anyway, didn't kill that many Sunnis compared to Kurds of Shi'ites) He fits all the criteria of America invading them. At least the Iraqis had oil to earn off. The Koreans have turned to collective farming, Stalin style and as a result are starving.

 

[KissStephanie]

North Korea is a huge problem, benefiting from half a century of support and protection under the umbrella of either the USSR and China, allowing them to build nuclear-capable missiles in their despotic, bellicose, and bankrupt regime.

Enough hasn't been done regarding the brutal Kim Jong-Il regime. Before Bush decided to declare war on Iraq for whatever reason that it was, the North Koreans had promised to carry out war with the US on the American mainland and setting Chicago, New York and Washington DC "aflame." They could currently strike San Francisco, and possibly LA and Seattle if they wanted to, and striking deeper into continental US is not far away.

A diplomatic solution must be found, and military action would undoubtedly lead to many more lives lost than in Iraq, not to mention the cost, and it's probably in China's best interests to see the continuation of a communist North Korea. China has supplied the finances to North Korea, but aren't they opposed to North Korea's nukes program? The US must get 'neutral' China to negotiate a multilateral solution.

The mess in Iraq has led to the problem that is now Iran, and also to the greater problem that is North Korea. This administration's handling of the North Korean crisis has been terrible.

 

[TheBloods]

Just amused that the spin you put on the NK situation can also apply to the Iran situation

Iran , who are not even close to developing nuclear weapons seem to be the current bad boys and North Korea who DO have the technology and the crazy in power are not

Isnt that a tad hypocritical of the US and of yourself?

What spin? The US has strategic interests in the Korean pensinsular and strategic interests in Iran. Who denied that?

They are both 'bad boys' - eg: axis of evil.

The world has been working for a while on trying to stop both of them. Neither are enormously interested in stopping.

Which part is hypocritical?

 

[TheBloods]

rough translation = its ok to be a dictator/rular/shah/royal family and ignore/subjugate/torture/oppress/practice sharia law as long as you do what we tell you to do and sell your oil to us?

What does this have to do with North Korea or nuclear weapons?

 

[TheBloods]

Enough hasn't been done regarding the brutal Kim Jong-Il regime.

A diplomatic solution must be found, and military action would undoubtedly lead to many more lives lost than in Iraq, not to mention the cost, and it's probably in China's best interests to see the continuation of a communist North Korea. China has supplied the finances to North Korea, but aren't they opposed to North Korea's nukes program? The US must get 'neutral' China to negotiate a multilateral solution.

This administration's handling of the North Korean crisis has been terrible.

This is not a new issue. What do you suggest they do. There have been round-table discussions involving NK, SK, Japan, China and the US, yet nothing has been achieved. The most important player is China - they are the ones who have the ability to turn the screws on NK. It's not always up to the US - how about "China needs to do more on NK"?