Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SLO on April 24, 2003, 12:27:38 PM
-
now they say they do have em.....
http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp
-
If they did and they do, then I think George Tenet ought to be outta here! We can't be having no mo intel failures.
-
They want direct talks and formal recognition as a legitimate government - what a gall (or naivette - they think being a legal government instead of legal nobody in US gov't's eyes would make US president ask Congress to declare war on them before he bombs them).
Surely the nuclear war is preferable to such intolerable demands.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Surely the nuclear war is preferable to such intolerable denamds.
miko
don't think Japan S.Korea or even China would agree too that....
-
Originally posted by SLO
don't think Japan S.Korea or even China would agree too that....
There's a new trend, the US doesn't depend on anyone's permission for it's actions, get used to it. Yeehaw!
-
I hate to say it but I think the first actual action might be an embago of the country. No actual action taken but an attempt to truly isolate tem from the rest of the world en\ven more than they are now.
I find it somewhat ironic that there is so little UN handwringing over this. Since the UN has done even little talking about, it the NK's have even less reason to cooperate with anyone.
Well UN, here's your chance to gain relevance instead of just bashing the US and Coalition members. What ya gona do? Ghostbusters are busy.........
-
Relax, gents.
It's in the capable hands of the UN SC now. The French, Germans, Russians and Chinese should have this solved within "2 weeks".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There's a new trend, the US doesn't depend on anyone's permission for it's actions, get used to it. Yeehaw!
And Portland was such a nice city...
-
Maverick: I hate to say it but I think the first actual action might be an embago of the country.
I sympatise with your reluctance to say it. They already declared that any such act would be treated as war and responded to by nuclear strike. You live in one of the West Coast metropolices or have relatives there?
Still worth the cost, right? Not everyone would be willing to sacrifice as much as you do.
miko
-
You really believe that bluff Miko?
-
Well, if it's going to come to war, it's probably stupid of them to start it now when they don't really have a big arsenal or a good delivery system.
Everybody take a deep breath. And relax. Oh, and check Nostradamus. Maybe he says something about when the Kimchee will come down out of the north raining radioactive cabbage or something.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Everybody take a deep breath. And relax. Oh, and check Nostradamus. Maybe he says something about when the Kimchee will come down out of the north raining radioactive cabbage or something.
Wasn't he French though?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Maverick: I hate to say it but I think the first actual action might be an embago of the country.
I sympatise with your reluctance to say it. They already declared that any such act would be treated as war and responded to by nuclear strike. You live in one of the West Coast metropolices or have relatives there?
Still worth the cost, right? Not everyone would be willing to sacrifice as much as you do.
miko
Miko,
Yes I have family on the west coast. That had nothing to do with my post. I simply stated what I think would be the most likely course taken be it by the US or the UN.
As to what I am willing to sacrifice. please do not attempt to speak for me anymore. You really don't have a clue about what I think and certainly not nearly enough of an idea to speak about it. You read into the post quite a bit that was not implied.
-
funkedup: You really believe that bluff Miko?
What have they got to lose? What's to stop him?
Do you really believe that he will be as decent and considerate as Saddam Hussein as to refuse waisting his country and inflict unnecessary casualties on the world with WMDs even faced with certain death or worse, fall from power?
Hussein must at least have passed psychologiocal eveluation before CIA chose him as Iraq's leader in 1960s. He worked for his achievements and must have been a patriot at least at some time in his life.
The Kim Il Seng is a wild card - just imagine what conditions of total power and godhood admiration he grew up with. He must be totally screwed up psychologically.
miko
-
if nuclear exchange will make the kimchee spicier, I don't really see the harm in it... ;)
In all seriousness though...
Does anyone actually think threatening a nuclear attack by NK is going to have any bearing on US policy towards NK in a way that benefits NK?
No, I didn't think so.
Concessions from the USA will not be given to NK under threat of any attack (conventional, chemical, nuclear, or even "we'll give the stuff to terrorists.") That's plain and clear.
I have a bad feeling this is going to come down to the USA perceiving this to be sabre rattling and a bluff and call NK out on it (either literally, or figuratively by embargos, blockades, etc.) Then we'll see if NK was just jerking our chain or if they really want Korean War II. If they do, I wonder when the 250,000 Chinese regulars come streaming across the China-NK border if they'll be shooting at NK's army or ours.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
funkedup: You really believe that bluff Miko?
What have they got to lose? What's to stop him?
Do you really believe that he will be as decent and considerate as Saddam Hussein as to refuse waisting his country and inflict unnecessary casualties on the world with WMDs even faced with certain death or worse, fall from power?
Hussein must at least have passed psychologiocal eveluation before CIA chose him as Iraq's leader in 1960s. He worked for his achievements and must have been a patriot at least at some time in his life.
The Kim Il Seng is a wild card - just imagine what conditions of total power and godhood admiration he grew up with. He must be totally screwed up psychologically.
miko
Kim and his country would be completely destroyed if they used nukes against the US or our allies. I can't see him trying it.
-
Recognizing them as a legitimate government? Well, two things: First of all, that wouldn't change the fact that they're starving and living without electricity. Second, have you heard them say they'd give up their nukes if this happened? Because I sure haven't and thus the problem would still remain.
I don't think there's very many folks that give a hoot about NK. They've made their own mess and they've been lying in it since the '50's.
They could go on living in their worker's paradise and no one would bother them.
Now they want to threaten the world with selling plutonium to terrorists? They want to threaten the US with nuke strikes? Ya know, it's times like these that bring the "You want a piece of this? Bring it!" emotion rises up in me.
If they pick a fight, they'll get far more than they ever dreamed. Yeah, it'll probably go nuclear. So? That's going to happen someday, somewhere anyway.
It will be the end of life on the Korean peninsula basically. The Japanese will probably have to move too.
Maybe it's best to get this over with NOW, before they really do have a credible inventory. Would you rather suffer a few nuke strikes or a massive exchange?
Every so often it seems this global society has to be graphically reminded of the true horrors of war.
Sometimes you have to deal with crazy people and it everyone gets hurt doing it. But you can't put it off forever either because it will just get worse. Suppose we give them recognition, oil, food, whatever for the next ten years while they keep cranking out nukes. Then what do you do with their next set of demands?
I'm not really worried though. The UN SC will handle this swiftly, surely and without a single mis-step. How can we miss with France, Germany, China and Russia leading the way?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Maybe he says something about when the Kimchee will come down out of the north raining radioactive cabbage or something.
mmmmmmm kimchee
-
funkedup: Kim and his country would be completely destroyed if they used nukes against the US or our allies. I can't see him trying it.
So you believe he is rational and will not commit a spectacular suicide when he has to die anyway?
Remember, we are in a liberation and threat reduction business now and the people most in need of liberation and posing most threat is NK right now. He is well aware of that. If we liberate NK, what are the chances of him not ending up dead? Would he even want to live in some french hotel if guaranteed so - not that we would? I bet he would go out with a bang.
Anyway, we are not arguing here whether US should disarm on North Korean's word - just whether we should send a delegation there for direct talks to listen to their requests.
What's the harm in that? The worst that happens they detain and kill Colin Powel and the rest of the delegation. A loss, no doubt, but not a disaster and not likely to hapen.
More likely Powell will just have to eat some kimchee. He can certainly endure that and can get a medal for his trouble :).
Recognizing them as a legitimate government? Well, two things: First of all, that wouldn't change the fact that they're starving and living without electricity.
Theoretically we are still in the state of war with them, so US president can legally send a strike there without impending threat or asking anyone. Legitimacy may prevent that - or so they hope.
Second, have you heard them say they'd give up their nukes if this happened?
Sure - recognising their legitimacy and creating non-agression treaty was the essense of 1994 agreement between them and Clinton brokered by Carter - it was not just about free oil for them. Recognition was promised to them in exchenge for disarming and keeping inspectors there to validate they abide by the rules.
Since they realised US had no intention of going through with that, they reneged on the agreement too.
You could argue that they should have disarmed first before we legitimised them but compare the risks. If we decided we made a mistake by legitimising them, we could reverse that in a short time or disregard that anyway. Nothing material would change for us - only words on paper.
But if they decided that they made a mistake and wasted eight years they could have been building the weapons - tough.
In that case legitimising them would be expected to precede their actual disarming.
If someone wants you to throw away your gun in exchange for nothing more than a promise of non-agression from a well-armed fellow and that fellow would hesitate to give you that promise untill you actually throw away your gun, would you?
The NK should have been invaded when it was safer to do so - in the 90s. I'd have been all for that. Unlike iraqis, I have no doubt north koreans would have been better off without that regime - even the dead ones.
But it is plain silly on our part to expect them to trust us or fall for our ruses and pretend "offended virtue".
miko
-
Miko, I'm sure Kim might commit suicide and take his whole country with him, but not over an embargo.
Also the fundamental breakdown in the Clintonistas' blackmail agreement was that the inspections (done by Hans Blix LMAO) indicated DPRK had relocated and hidden a lot of important things, and were not allowing a true inspection.
-
funkedup: Miko, I'm sure Kim might commit suicide and take his whole country with him, but not over an embargo.
What if that embargo is effective and he is likely to lose power because of it - if only when all his subjects die of starwation?
What if the families of generals and intelligence personnel starts starving? Wouldn't he be in grave danger?
Would he press the button then?
Also the fundamental breakdown in the Clintonistas' blackmail agreement was that the inspections (done by Hans Blix LMAO) indicated DPRK had relocated and hidden a lot of important things, and were not allowing a true inspection.
That's a more fundamental question. You can never trust politicians - not evil dictators, not elected presidents. If you have no means of verifying the agreement and not equipped to handle the violation, you have no business signing it - or pretending you would like to.
Maybe we should just evacualte the west coast, build bunkers elsewhere and give a fair warning to Japan and South Korea to prepare for trouble.
Can't see how direct talks would hurt, though.
miko
-
I thought All Kimchee was radioactive in the first place...
If its not radioactive the smell of that crap could double as nerve agent....
2 cents
DoctorYO
-
He doesnt have delivery system to hit the west coast and just because he seems a "wildcard" to you doesnt mean he has a death wish.
He is simply emboldened by the Clinton blackmail deal and is trying to force another.
Folks said Saddam would use wmd is pushed into a corner and he was pushed far more the Kim would be over an embargo.
He could hit Japan or SK but that would mean his end. He isnt some wanna be martyrl. He wants a deal so he talks big. When he realizes he aint gonna get hell shut up.
I dont see why we dont slip a couple of suit case nukes inf there and claim there was an "accident".
an unmanned drone with a nuke could fly right over top of the suspect facilities and "boom, handsomehunk commies must have turned the wrong screw".
I think the US should call their bluff just like they are doing.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Theoretically we are still in the state of war with them, so US president can legally send a strike there without impending threat or asking anyone. Legitimacy may prevent that - or so they hope.
miko
This means that NK could do the same, without impending threat?
Legitimacy??????.
After Iraq, Kim won´t surrender his arms in exchange of this term.
As US has proven not to respect ANY soverign state or internationel laws. The word Legitim has no longer any meaning.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Folks said Saddam would use wmd is pushed into a corner and he was pushed far more the Kim would be over an embargo.
Diffrence: Saddam probebly didnt have a Usable WMD.
Kim "Yo A Si s Mine" Yong is probebly also just a papertiger, but I would +nt bet anything on it
-
Batz: He doesnt have delivery system to hit the west coast and just because he seems a "wildcard" to you doesnt mean he has a death wish.
You seem exceptionally well informed.
Folks said Saddam would use wmd is pushed into a corner and he was pushed far more the Kim would be over an embargo.
Do you imply Saddam was not a bad guy we depicted him or that he did not have WMD?
I dont see why we dont slip a couple of suit case nukes inf there and claim there was an "accident".
Ever tried to be a tourist in NK?
I think the US should call their bluff just like they are doing.
Right. Nuclear strike rather that another attempt to talk without losing anything.
Why do you think the risk of hearing some bad words on those talks is worse that the risk of nuclear war, again?
miko
-
Originally posted by crabofix
This means that NK could do the same, without impending threat?
Legitimacy??????.
After Iraq, Kim won´t surrender his arms in exchange of this term.
As US has proven not to respect ANY soverign state or internationel laws. The word Legitim has no longer any meaning.
Crabo...you still a ****ing clueless tardlet I can see.
The US is certainly a threat to an organisation like the UN. With it "international" law that more times than not accomplishes notta.
We have sit back in the past, as have other nations and observed over and over the hand wringing, bickering and poltical back stabbing done by that creature called the UN. We've pretty much determined that when it concerns our nations security and its allies that IS useless.
Why dont you take a hard look at NK at see how much THEY have respected your vaunted UN and its international law.
Its always amusing to see you open that pie hole. Its predicablet hat whatever you spout off will be anti-american is some form or manner.
-
Originally posted by batdog
Crabo...you still a ****ing clueless tardlet I can see.
The US is certainly a threat to an organisation like the UN. With it "international" law that more times than not accomplishes notta.
We have sit back in the past, as have other nations and observed over and over the hand wringing, bickering and poltical back stabbing done by that creature called the UN. We've pretty much determined that when it concerns our nations security and its allies that IS useless.
Why dont you take a hard look at NK at see how much THEY have respected your vaunted UN and its international law.
Its always amusing to see you open that pie hole. Its predicablet hat whatever you spout off will be anti-american is some form or manner.
Ok, batdog, no wonder that people are feeling a bit Anti, when you always are calling them *********
I wonder if you have a secret sexuell fantasy of getting a mouthwash?
Was it something your mother did when you where a child (younger) and you often think about, when having private moments?
Now to the sitting back, getting backstabbed by the UN.
Anyone that disagree with you are backstabbers?
France are backstabbers because they chose not to go into war, breaking International laws?
Or backstabbers because they where´nt shure about US motives?
SHOW ME THE WMDS, Please.
Everithing else is just, "talk, talk, talk", proof needed, NOW.
-
I'm just dying for a good old nuclear strike anyway. Iraq was a disappointment. Let's see some flashes over NK!
-
All countries, evil or not, that want to be safe need nukes while Bush & Co are in charge, they are incalculable :D
Countries of this world: Better run and get 'em before it's to late!
Regards Blitz
-
Let's hit Germany while we're at it.
-
Even if they have a few nukes and a delivery system they wont be able to launch any missiles. The missiles they have probably need long preparations before they can launch them, and you will have plenty of time to take them out.
-
My simple opinion (and over-simplified) is that Saddam was a thug but Kim Jong Il (please learn how to spell his name correctly people) is mentally unstable.
The North Korean people believe in him and when he says that the US is attacking North Korea they will attack back. Nevermind that his definition might be an embargo.
I agree with Batz...maybe he doesn't have a delivery system so let's call his bluff. Embargo the bastard and see what he does.
And BTW...Blitz, you still need to put your tin foil hat back on you conspiracy theory nut bag.
-
General Nam Il and General Harrison signed the Armistice Agreement at 10 o'clock in the morning of 27 July 1953; in 1994, the North Koreans announced that they were withdrawing from the Military Armistice Commission, but they continue to maintain representation at Panmunjom.
You call that being in a "state of war" with them? If so, it's NK that has "re-declared" the war.. not us. Makes it tough on them if we don't want to play war, doesn't it?
They're going to have to make an overt act of war; and of course, it's that blue UN flag that flies over the DMZ. So, they'll have to go to war against the UN. I don't see that as likely. It's the US they wish to milk like a cow. They don't want to fight the US or the UN. They just want to blackmail us; that's what this is all about.
They're worried about us hitting them with a first strike? Let them worry. Let them make nukes. Let them eat their nukes.
The agreed framework said "The two sides will move toward full normalization of political and economic relations."
The Clinton administration made some progress on fulfilling this aspect of the framework toward the end of its second term, most notably when then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang in October 2000. Additionally, in June 2000, Washington eased longstanding sanctions against North Korea under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Defense Production Act, and the Export Administration Act, clearing the way for increased trade, financial transactions, and investment. Pyongyang is still prohibited, however, from receiving U.S. exports of military and sensitive dual-use items and most related assistance.
U.S. intelligence believes that Kim Jong-Il started up his covert uranium weapons program sometime between 1998 and 2000.
It's clear that the NK's were in violation of the PRIMARY purpose of the AF about 4 years after they signed it. So maybe Clinton didn't feel bound by it since they were already breaking the agreement.
It's obvious Bush doesn't feel bound by it and rightly so.
They can threaten all they like but even an inscrutable NK should be able to scrutinize the reaction those threats are drawing from the present administration.
If they seek to reduce the possibility of war by threatening us with war, they're crazy. And if they are crazy, there'll be a war.
And they'll lose.
-
Batz: He doesnt have delivery system to hit the west coast and just because he seems a "wildcard" to you doesnt mean he has a death wish.
You seem exceptionally well informed.
Folks said Saddam would use wmd is pushed into a corner and he was pushed far more the Kim would be over an embargo.
Do you imply Saddam was not a bad guy we depicted him or that he did not have WMD?
I dont see why we dont slip a couple of suit case nukes inf there and claim there was an "accident".
Ever tried to be a tourist in NK?
I think the US should call their bluff just like they are doing.
Right. Nuclear strike rather that another attempt to talk without losing anything.
Why do you think the risk of hearing some bad words on those talks is worse that the risk of nuclear war, again?
miko
I am informed enough to know the history behind the threats this guy makes. He wants a deal.
No Saddam was a bad guy, but not bad enough to commit suicide just to kill a few folks with wmd. It was a foregone conclusion that should he go that route he would be obliterated. Neither Saddam nor Kim have the idealogical drive that Hitler had. They wont die in their bunker at the very end just to prove a point.
Do you think we cant insert agents into NK?
His threat of a nuclear strike is only as credible as the technology he has to deliver it. What would 1 or 2 nukes achieve for him anyway? He would be blown to off the face of the earth. What would he gain?
A person could sit hear and say that if you dont pay their AH account they will blow up NY. Would you right a check? or want to discuss it further?
They will continue to talk but not on his terms. Who said they wouldnt.
You better stick to monetary conspiracies, thats more in line with your style of paranoia.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Maverick: I hate to say it but I think the first actual action might be an embago of the country.
I sympatise with your reluctance to say it. They already declared that any such act would be treated as war and responded to by nuclear strike. You live in one of the West Coast metropolices or have relatives there?
Still worth the cost, right? Not everyone would be willing to sacrifice as much as you do.
miko
We would knock thier few pitiful missles down then send a couple back towards them. Do you think they are idiots?
-
Originally posted by blitz
All countries, evil or not, that want to be safe need nukes while Bush & Co are in charge, they are incalculable :D
Countries of this world: Better run and get 'em before it's to late!
Regards Blitz
Shut up stupid
-
Originally posted by batdog
We have sit back in the past, as have other nations and observed over and over the hand wringing, bickering and poltical back stabbing done by that creature called the UN. We've pretty much determined that when it concerns our nations security and its allies that IS useless.
.
The UN has an important function and we will never withdraw from it.
We keep an eye on our enemies and have dialog with them through the UN.
-
Originally posted by Batz
. Neither Saddam nor Kim have the idealogical drive that Hitler had. They wont die in their bunker at the very end just to prove a point.
Batz you think hitler killed himself to make a point?
I think he knew it was all over anyway and took the cowards way out.
And dont matter if Kims a kook if he gets called on his bluff its all over for him and he damn well knows it.
If he wants to die he is on the right side of the road.
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Ok, batdog, no wonder that people are feeling a bit Anti, when you always are calling them *********
I wonder if you have a secret sexuell fantasy of getting a mouthwash?
Was it something your mother did when you where a child (younger) and you often think about, when having private moments?
Now to the sitting back, getting backstabbed by the UN.
Anyone that disagree with you are backstabbers?
France are backstabbers because they chose not to go into war, breaking International laws?
Or backstabbers because they where´nt shure about US motives?
SHOW ME THE WMDS, Please.
Everithing else is just, "talk, talk, talk", proof needed, NOW.
I would reply..but your post is like trying to translate a monkey sitting in a tree screaming at me while he throws feces in my direction.
About the only thing I can fiqure is that once again... being clueless your just going to spew some crap and hope it makes some sort of sense?
-
So, it was Alien that abducted your sister and made her pregnant to?
You say Ol´yeller and Bubba saw em?
Wake up, hillbillie "bat"dog.
-
Kim isn't such a wild card, and he isn't crazy, he likes american booze and he likes sweedish women, and pop music . War would really interferre with his life. He just want's more money .
North Korea is doing the same thing it's done for 40 years, nothing new. President Bush just brought it back into the spotlight with his "axis of evil" statement .
-
Who gives a fk about sweden.. crabo..shut your hole..
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
Who gives a fk about sweden.. crabo..shut your hole..
Sweden rocks. It beat out Canada as the best country to live in. :D
-
When the bunker buster mini-nukes and ABM systems are ready, W will make an example of NK. He's just making time until then.
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
Who gives a fk about sweden.. crabo..shut your hole..
Said Joesmoe, jealouse, beacause he only had a junior member