North Korean Nuke Test

[KCFlyer]

i think your bias is quite evident in your comments. a couple of thoughts from the duck:

1. but to reflexisively respond with a bush-bash post seems ill-informed.

You didn't address the issue he brought up about China holding the mortgage on the USA...

3. i think their is a tendency in many americans to think that we a/ can solve the world's problems and b/ that we should. my sense is that north korean nuclearization is neither a problem the u.s. should try to solve nor one we can.

But our actions in Iraq (with us or agin us), and ignoring the advice of most of the other major powers in the world pretty much indicated that the US was saying "You all have pussyfooted around here for years...WE'LL show you how it's supposed to be done". So our foreign policy pretty much seems to exude the attitude that "we know best", therefore can Americans help it if we feel that we should solve the worlds problems?

4. as i posted before, this issue is primarily a chinese/korean/japanese issue.

Iraq was primarily an issue between Saddam and his people...why did we intervene there?

 

[The Drunken Duck]

You didn't address the issue he brought up about China holding the mortgage on the USA...

the issue of whether china's holding us treasury notes in its foreign currency reserves is good or bad for the u.s. and the potential impact this has on u.s. foreign policy is tad bit complicated. it a nutshell, my sense is that their holding u.s. notes is helpful to the u.s. economy (i.e. they are subsiding our consumption) and has no impact on u.s. foreign policy (the chinese would probably be hurt the most from currency appreciation vs. the usd which is why the are only gradually removing the usd peg). again, i think it has absolutely no impact on u.s. foreign policy.

But our actions in Iraq (with us or agin us), and ignoring the advice of most of the other major powers in the world pretty much indicated that the US was saying "You all have pussyfooted around here for years...WE'LL show you how it's supposed to be done". So our foreign policy pretty much seems to exude the attitude that "we know best", therefore can Americans help it if we feel that we should solve the worlds problems?

i don't think u.s. action in iraq has had any impact on north korean decision making. they have been on this course for 20yrs. developing delivery systems and nuclear bomb technology ever since they gained access to nuclear technology from the chinese, russians and pakistani's. one could put forward an arguement that the u.s. defeat of iraq's army scared lil kim, which is why he developed the bomb. i don't think this idea holds up to rigorous scrutiny because of the terrain of the korean pennisula, the u.s. force structure and ROK army capabilities. in a nutshell, lil kim knows we wont invade and we know he wont attack the south

so, why is lil kim developing a bomb? probably three reasons, 1/ weaken the u.s. president politically, 2/ block increase financial restrictions being placed on them, see BBC News re: Banco Delta Asia 3/ change the "facts on the ground" so that he can reposition the negotiating position of the north (i.e. his political class).

my personal view is that against these 3 goals, he has done well this round; but the game is long

Iraq was primarily an issue between Saddam and his people...why did we intervene there?

i think you are confusing two fairly different foreign policy questions. the issues driving u.s. policy in each region are - and should be - different. nuclearization of the korean pennisula is an asian problem. they need to develop the polical processes to solve it. u.s. involvement is inhibiting a clarity of thought on this.

kc, i am sure you want to paint this all with a broad anti-bush/anti-republicans/anti-whatever brush, but that is really not helpful. the problem of north korea is really a cross-party issue. it only becomes partisan in that it allows one polical group to gain leverage as being a "hawk" on a specific foriegn policy topic for domestic polical consumption. in the end, i don't think a democrat, republican, independent, green,...whatever...can solve this. only china, japan and south korea can.

 

[bagstacker]

the issue of whether china's holding us treasury notes in its foreign currency reserves is good or bad for the u.s. and the potential impact this has on u.s. foreign policy is tad bit complicated. it a nutshell, my sense is that their holding u.s. notes is helpful to the u.s. economy (i.e. they are subsiding our consumption) and has no impact on u.s. foreign policy (the chinese would probably be hurt the most from currency appreciation vs. the usd which is why the are only gradually removing the usd peg). again, i think it has absolutely no impact on u.s. foreign policy.
i don't think u.s. action in iraq has had any impact on north korean decision making. they have been on this course for 20yrs. developing delivery systems and nuclear bomb technology ever since they gained access to nuclear technology from the chinese, russians and pakistani's. one could put forward an arguement that the u.s. defeat of iraq's army scared lil kim, which is why he developed the bomb. i don't think this idea holds up to rigorous scrutiny because of the terrain of the korean pennisula, the u.s. force structure and ROK army capabilities. in a nutshell, lil kim knows we wont invade and we know he wont attack the south

so, why is lil kim developing a bomb? probably three reasons, 1/ weaken the u.s. president politically, 2/ block increase financial restrictions being placed on them, see BBC News re: Banco Delta Asia 3/ change the "facts on the ground" so that he can reposition the negotiating position of the north (i.e. his political class).

my personal view is that against these 3 goals, he has done well this round; but the game is long
i think you are confusing two fairly different foreign policy questions. the issues driving u.s. policy in each region are - and should be - different. nuclearization of the korean pennisula is an asian problem. they need to develop the polical processes to solve it. u.s. involvement is inhibiting a clarity of thought on this.

kc, i am sure you want to paint this all with a broad anti-bush/anti-republicans/anti-whatever brush, but that is really not helpful. the problem of north korea is really a cross-party issue. it only becomes partisan in that it allows one polical group to gain leverage as being a "hawk" on a specific foriegn policy topic for domestic polical consumption. in the end, i don't think a democrat, republican, independent, green,...whatever...can solve this. only china, japan and south korea can.

While you make some good points, there is an election on, and Americans are thinking about who will do a better job of handling the challenges that face us. There is nothing wrong with pointing out just who was in charge when NK got the bomb, especially in light of all the "it's Clinton's fault" stories from the right-wing noise machine. If you think this "course" is the one to "stay", vote for it. But there IS a choice, there IS an alternative and there IS a difference...

 

[local 12 proud]

Iran, North Korea seen closely coordinating on strategy, nuclear development

http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/

 

[The Drunken Duck]

While you make some good points, there is an election on, and Americans are thinking about who will do a better job of handling the challenges that face us. There is nothing wrong with pointing out just who was in charge when NK got the bomb, especially in light of all the "it's Clinton's fault" stories from the right-wing noise machine. If you think this "course" is the one to "stay", vote for it. But there IS a choice, there IS an alternative and there IS a difference...

clearly the political party in charge when some country develops a nuclear weapon could be used as a form of consideration by an american voter, but to me at least, it seems a bit irrelevant in the broad range of issues to consider when entering the ballot box. no one seems to have been held anyone accountable when south africa(carter), pakistan(clinton), india(ford), ... developed a bomb. my sense is that the person "in charge" is a bit irrelevant unless you assume the u.s. presidents 1/ can and 2/ should prevent these things. unfortunately as it may be, the various countries are independent nation-states and there are and should be limits to u.s. power to influence them.

finally, to return to your post, one could vote with the theory that you are voting for "stay the course" vs. "change" re: u.s. policy in north asia, but i suspect that would be a false choice. moreover, there are a whole host of more reasonable issues to vote for that are based on topics that the legislative branch has more influence over.

 

[Seatacus]

The U.N. has just voted sanctions on North Korea so what do you think North Korea is going to do now? Do you think that lil Kim is shaking in his platform shoes? Do you think he is so scared his hair is standing on end(too late )? IMHO sanctions are just going to buy time for them to fire off some more missiles and nukes. I've got a feeling that someone is going to threaten to loan a few nukes to South Korea and Japan. China may not like this and hopefully give North Korea the spanking they deserve.

 

[The Drunken Duck]

The U.N. has just voted sanctions on North Korea so what do you think North Korea is going to do now? Do you think that lil Kim is shaking in his platform shoes? Do you think he is so scared his hair is standing on end(too late )? IMHO sanctions are just going to buy time for them to fire off some more missiles and nukes. I've got a feeling that someone is going to threaten to loan a few nukes to South Korea and Japan. China may not like this and hopefully give North Korea the spanking they deserve.

if the sanctions work, and place financial costs on the north, it could very well cause lil kim/north korea.

lil kim leads a large military class which have a dog in this fight. a crunch on their ability to eat, buy mercedes benzes and travel would crystalize the cost to them. lil kim didn't consolidate his leadership until recently and the "generals", if concerned about their financial well-being, could encourage a re-think.

china's primary concern is the risk of nuclear japan and refugee flow. they are trying to walk a fine line as they would not be keen on seeing 2 million refugees crossing the yalu river...

 

[Ch. 12]

i think you are confusing two fairly different foreign policy questions. the issues driving u.s. policy in each region are - and should be - different. nuclearization of the korean pennisula is an asian problem. they need to develop the polical processes to solve it. u.s. involvement is inhibiting a clarity of thought on this.

Please tell us how nuclearization of a region that is closer to the US than is Iraq (which wasn't even building nukes...just regional-range weapons...supposedly...but that wasn't even true) is NOT a US problem but Iraq was. You skirted the issue with a load of BS. If you say that oil is why we were concerned about Iraq, then why have we done away with electric cars and with TRUE attempts at weaning ourselves from oil. In fact, since 2000, we are much MORE reliant on the juice that comes from the Middle East and Texas. 😱 Did I just come up with something?

Anyways...you are full of B.S. to say that NK is less important to the US than Iraq. ONE of these countries is well on its way to developing technology to hit the mainland US and can already hit our outlieing states and I'll give you a hint. It ain't Iraq. Just b/c Bush and Fox News told you that Iraq is more important doesn't make it so. Don't be a lemming and try using your noggin to figure out which country truly is a threat. Oops. Looks like we invaded the wrong country. :blink:

 

[The Drunken Duck]

Please tell us how nuclearization of a region that is closer to the US than is Iraq (which wasn't even building nukes...just regional-range weapons...supposedly...but that wasn't even true) is NOT a US problem but Iraq was.

i didn't state that iraq was (or was not) a u.s. problem that required military action to address. all i commented on was that connecting the two did not seem to me as being relevant in establishing the appropriate course of action in regards to north korea. i think you read something into my post that wasn't there.

If you say that oil is why we were concerned about Iraq, then why have we done away with electric cars and with TRUE attempts at weaning ourselves from oil. In fact, since 2000, we are much MORE reliant on the juice that comes from the Middle East and Texas. 😱 Did I just come up with something?

not sure what this has to do with the north korean nuclear weapons test.

Anyways...you are full of B.S. to say that NK is less important to the US than Iraq. ONE of these countries is well on its way to developing technology to hit the mainland US and can already hit our outlieing states and I'll give you a hint. It ain't Iraq. Just b/c Bush and Fox News told you that Iraq is more important doesn't make it so. Don't be a lemming and try using your noggin to figure out which country truly is a threat. Oops. Looks like we invaded the wrong country. :blink:

a couple of comments:

1/ i never made a connection between the two situations. my posts didn't state that i thought iraq was more or less important than north korea.
2/ not sure what i wrote that earned your fox news / bush comment. i assume you are trying to associate me with some political viewpoint
3/ i have a hard time envisioning a scenario where the north korean's would launch an attack on the u.s. mainland. what would be the strategic goal they are trying to achieve? self-destruction? the north is not invading the south and the south can't nor does it want to invade the north.

ch12, dial down on the hostility.

 

[delldude]

The merde will hit the ventilateur when either Iran attacks Israel or Israel does a counter against what it percieves as an imminent threat to its survival.US will be treatisewise obligated to defend Israel and Russia and China shall be obligated by treaty to intervene with Iran,soley fullfilling the prophetic events outlined some 2000 or more years ago in the Bible.....

Its in Revelation and describes how the people from "rosh" and the kings of the "east" will roll over the middle east.

With what I have described above transpires,and it will....bring us up to date biblically....if thats what you subscribe to.......

and with the political scene in the middle east today....tell me what other outcome can you submit?

Escalates to WWIII in an instant.....

Ben Roethlisberger:

 

[KCFlyer]

Its in Revelation and describes how the people from "rosh" and the kings of the "east" will roll over the middle east.

Don't you find it interesting that the White House is in the "east"? And it's occupied by an end times evangelical? Is Bush the Antichrist?

 

[local 12 proud]

Don't you find it interesting that the White House is in the "east"? And it's occupied by an end times evangelical? Is Bush the Antichrist?

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world". (1 John 4:3, ESV)