a rant about North Korea

POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 23, 2025 06:30
VIEWED: 7175
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

MAVOURNEEN

Friday, October 20, 2006 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I'm tired of hearing about the whole North Korea thing.

Two points on MY mind, don't care too much about anything else the media is saying:

1> This is really Japan's, and South Korea's, problem, and of course China's. How 'bout shutting up and letting them take some responsibility, letting them do the heavy lifting, doing what they want?

2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the N Korean guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of N Korea's Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Kim Jong II permanently.

Not sure I support that myself, but I'm p!$$&d off about their attitude and the whole thing, and that would get it over with...

Thank you'all for letting me vent, anyway

How does this sound?

I'm tired of hearing about the whole Kansas thing.

Two points on MY mind, don't care too much about anything else the media is saying:

1> This is really Oklahoma's, and Nebraska’s problem, and of course Missouri's. How 'bout shutting up and letting them take some responsibility, letting them do the heavy lifting, doing what they want?

2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the Kansas guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of Kansas’ Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Governor Kathleen Sebelius permanently.

Not sure I support that myself, but I'm p!$$&d off about their attitude and the whole thing, and that would get it over with...

Thank you'all for letting me vent, anyway

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, October 22, 2006 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mavourneen:
>>> I snipped a bunch...<<<
2> If this is such an immediate, urgent problem, how 'bout believing the Kansas guy when he says this is a declaration of war, calling Congress back into emergency session BEFORE the election, voting on a Declaration of War, and bombing the @#$$! out of Kansas’ Nuclear sites, then military positions if their army attacks, then political and/or governmental institutions. Bring about regime change by overwhelming military might, nuclear if necessary, removing Governor Kathleen Sebelius permanently.

Not sure what your criticism is, but IF Kansas was developing nukes, in the face of the opposition of EVERYBODY, and saying that what other folks were doing was a declaration of war, , then yes, we should call Congress back, right before an election, and make 'em vote Yea or Nay on the Public Record. Then proceed accordingly. If it was gonna be war, it would be in our best interest to strike an overwhelming blow as quickly as possible.

RABBIT2

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:45 PM

It occurs to me that, technicaly speaking the UN is still at war with North Korea. The Korean War never officially ended and what happened was just a long ceasefire which Kim has just broken by his recent actions.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

RUE

Monday, October 23, 2006 8:18 PM

This was an interesting article from AsiaTimes online

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ19Dg01.html
It highlights the importance of the fact that plutonium was used on NK's test, not uranium. Plutonium was what the Clinton admin monitored and kept from being manufactured. The Bush admin pulled out of the Agreed Framework with NK after claiming NK was producing fissionable uranium. After that, NK expanded its production of plutonium, and has used some of their reserves to test a bomb.

"Bush knows what kind of bomb was tested because the at-least partially successful nuke blast was not completely contained.
In 1992 ... the North Koreans threatened to withdraw from the NPT.
In 1994, president Bill Clinton persuaded North Korea to sign the Agreed Framework (to),
... remain a signatory to the NPT
... shut down its plutonium-239-producing reactor
... close its spent-fuel reprocessing facilities
... place all its existing nuclear materials - including the plutonium-239 contained under the lock and seal of the IAEA
... and to abandon construction of its 50-MW and 200-MW, plutonium-239-producing reactors.

Clinton promised to
... (replace) their graphite-moderated plutonium-239 producing reactors with light-water nuclear power plants
... provide millions of tons of fuel oil to tide them over
... never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them

In September 2002, US officials privately confronted the North Koreas of having a secret uranium-235 nuke program, which the North Koreans then vehemently denied publicly, and have continued to deny to this day.

The president - citing the uranium-235 nuke "intelligence" - stopped fuel oil shipments to North Korea in November 2002, thereby abrogating the Agreed Framework. As Bush may have intended, the North Koreans almost immediately announced they were withdrawing from the NPT.
Hence, in January 2003, on the eve of Bush's invasion of Iraq, North Korea ejected IAEA inspectors, restarted its plutonium-239 producing reactor and began recovering plutonium-239 from their spent fuel, which had been under IAEA lock and seal since the Agreed Framework was established in 1994. By most estimates, they now have enough plutonium-239 to make six to 10 nukes and are busy producing more

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:28 AM

I have also heard ( on CNN, no link sorry ) that the six party talks managed to come up with two seperate deals that were acceptable to all partys except the US...

The former state department guy that was being interviewed speculated that was because team Bush is not interested in diplomacy only regime change....

In that context, North Korea pulling out of the six party talks makes sense... no deal to be had so why bother. In addition to Rues last, Bush is acting on his " intellegence " which worked oh so well in Iraq, whether or not the were violating the treaty, there really was no way to prove they were in compliance to even the extent Saddam did.... So what did they have to lose, why not have a bigger stick...

Do I see a burning Bush ?

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:54 AM

Quote:
Hero: Why didn't it happen back when we had the draft?

What? It didn't? Where was I? Wait, no, where were you?

Did you somehow miss the license for unchecked war being carried out in an unchecked war against Japan, Korea, Vietnam ... ?

The only reason serial war stopped is that the draft was ended. Unfortunately, now we have robots. but still, the draft is a big can of kerosene.

Quote:

How about Russia, they currently have a draft, why haven't they attacked everything in sight?

They're not? They haven't been for a century... um, where was I, ... no wait ...

See, Russia is attacking everything in sight, and has been for some time, as is China, and Israel. It doesn't happen everywhere because not all cultures are the same, and it's not always feasible, but it sure happens these ones.

Your argument defeats itself.

Quote:
Citizen

The problem with your plan for Iraq, DT, is that it's the long game without the big bangs and flag waving hysteria "we got the bad guys, we got 'em good huya!".

LOL
True. I tend to hope people are better than this, but I could be mistaken. Certainly politicians on avg. don't seem to be.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:00 AM

Clinton promised to
... (replace) their graphite-moderated plutonium-239 producing reactors with light-water nuclear power plants
... provide millions of tons of fuel oil to tide them over
... never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them

A little outside of the presidential powers..ya think?

FLAMETREE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:08 PM

You want to decrease the chance of WW3?

Disarm USA

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:26 PM

We can't really do squat about North Korea unless your willing to see a bloodbath many times worse than Iraq or sacrifice maybe thousands upon thousands of American troops over a matter of a few hours, plus Kim has also got biological and chemical WMDs. The DPRK dictator also has missiles that would be in range of Okinawa, Tokyo, Osan...The artillery will be the major problem, they've a huge standing army with thousands of commandos and they got alot of missiles pointed at Seoul. What is to say that when cornered, he's not going to try to take the South and a good chunk of Asia down with him?

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:39 AM

Jaynestown,

Nonsense.

Containment. It's a US strategy which worked for many years. You position forces in such a way that it is not practical for your enemy to attack. Defend SK and Japan to the hilt. Add troops, aircraft carriers and anti-missile systems. Anti-missile systems aren't 100% yet, but they're a start. At the very least it will have KJI thinking "uh oh, if I nuke japan and fail, the retaliation will annihilate me." He's insane, not stupid.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE