[AZTOY]

N. Korea warns of WW III, dumps nuke treaty
Associated Press
Jan. 10, 2003 09:30 AM

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea, warning of a "Third World War," withdrew from the global treaty that bars it from making nuclear weapons but said Friday it was willing to talk to Washington to end the escalating crisis.


The United States said it was not surprised by the North Korean move. South Korea called the nuclear standoff a matter of "life and death." Significantly, China, the North's closest ally, voiced disappointment and urged negotiations.

In Vienna, Austria, the U.N. nuclear agency also said Pyongyang should reverse course and open negotiations. It did not mention taking the case to the U.N. Security Council, where the North could face further economic sanctions.

President Bush talked by phone Friday with Chinese President Jiang Zemin. "This finds us in common purpose," Bush told Zemin in the 15-minute conversation, according to presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer.

"China disagrees to the withdrawal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," China's official Xinhau news agency quoted Jiang as telling Bush.

Jiang's comments were seen as particularly significant because Beijing chooses its words carefully when discussing the issue of North Korea. It has avoided direct criticism of its neighbor and fellow communist state. Jiang's statement appeared to use slightly stronger language than usual; China typically says only that it advocates a "nuclear-free Korean Peninsula."

Earlier, Washington had said North Korea already was violating the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by secretly pursuing weapons development and flouting U.N. safeguards. The United States believes the North already has one or two nuclear bombs.

"The North Koreans were not adhering to the treaty when they were still a party to it," said Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton, who was visiting Thailand.

North Korea said it was quitting the treaty because of alleged U.S. aggression, but said it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons and would use its nuclear program only for peaceful purposes "at this stage."

The North's declaration heightened tension as the United States and its allies seek a diplomatic solution. Pyongyang's action could mean the North is trying to force the United States to make concessions, including a nonaggression treaty and economic aid.

The Bush administration, awaiting the outcome of talks in New Mexico, said North Korea must completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

"The only message we expect is what America's position is, that we are ready to talk, and that we will not negotiate," Fleischer said.

Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, was expected to push that message during a second day of discussions Friday in Santa Fe with two North Korean U.N. diplomats. They met for two hours over dinner on Thursday.

"The talks were cordial but candid," said Richardson's spokesman, Billy Sparks. Richardson visited North Korea on two diplomatic missions while he was still a member of Congress during the 1990s.

North Korea's U.N. ambassador criticized the Bush administration's offer to talk but not negotiate.

"I think that is not a sincere attitude of the negotiators," Pak Gil Yon told a news conference at the United Nations on Friday.

As it announced it would pull out of the treaty, a keystone to global nuclear nonproliferation, the North warned the United States not to take military action against it. Pyongyang said a "new Korean War will finally lead to the Third World War" and that the North could hold its own in a "fire-to-fire standoff." The comment was distributed by the official North Korean news agency in English.

The treaty, which the North joined in 1985, requires a withdrawing nation to give three months notice. North Korea, however, said it was withdrawing as of Saturday.

Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, the Philippines and Russia were among countries that expressed deep concern. Britain condemned the North Korean move as "a wrong decision."

South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said dialogue was the only way to solve the nuclear crisis, which he called a matter of "life and death."

His National Security Council held an emergency meeting. Afterward, the Foreign Ministry said the North's withdrawal was a "serious threat to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula" and urged it to retract its decision.

The nuclear tension could be discussed at Cabinet-level talks between the two Koreas that are scheduled for Jan. 21-24 in Seoul. However, North Korea says the issue is strictly a matter between it and the United States.

In a clear signal it feared losing face, the government said through KNCA:

"We can no longer remain bound to the NPT, allowing the country's security and the dignity of our nation to be infringed upon."

"Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention of producing nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity," the news agency said.

However, analysts say a nuclear reactor in the North Korean town of Yongbyon - the focus of the latest dispute - provides a negligible amount of power. The facility was the centerpiece of a weapons program until it was frozen in a 1994 energy deal with the United States.

U.S. officials said that North Korean negotiators acknowledged in October that they had a second, clandestine nuclear program.

In 1993, North Korea also announced that it was withdrawing from the treaty, but suspended the decision three months later and entered talks with the United States. It again left open the possibility of a negotiated solution.

"If the U.S. drops its hostile policy to stifle the DPRK and stops its nuclear threat to it, the DPRK may prove through a separate verification between the DPRK and the U.S. that it does not make any nuclear weapons," the North Korean government statement said.

DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the communist state's official name.

The crisis worsened last month when Pyongyang expelled U.N. inspectors at the Yongbyon site and said it was reactivating the facilities. Experts say North Korea could make several more bombs within six months if it extracts weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel rods.

North Korea joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1985. In 1994, North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon under an energy deal with the United States. Those facilities are the focus of the new crisis.

Only four other countries - Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan - are not signatories, though Cuba is a member of a treaty establishing a nuclear-free zone in Latin America.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0110NKorea10-ON.html

[Tamara]

One wonders what they could possibly hope to gain from this... :confused:

[2nd Amendment]

Is gain even a consideration? I listen to some of these Eastern "leaders" talk and I am always struck by how differently they look at things. This is why I still say we are in a very dangerous situation, globally. I don't think many understand the motivations of some of these people at all. I know I don't, but I'm at least concious there is a difference. I wonder about some of our own "leaders" in this regard.

[Roadrunner]

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35614-2003Jan9.html) reported today that North Korea would be willing to remain in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the U.S. and allies resumed fuel oil shipments. Nukes, or the threat of nuclear weapons, are a barginning chip North Korea will continue to use until they get what they want.

[Sean Smith]

At the risk of sounding simplistic, I think the North Korean "leadership" has gone completely mental.

The problem with North Korea, compared to other third-world nutbag regimes, is that they can actually kill off large numbers of our allies very quickly. Seoul is in artillery range of a huge number North Korean guns. In fact, North Korea has an absolutely stupidly huge number of heavy artillery pieces. So what if they are inaccurate compared to a Paladin? So what if half of them blow up after the first shot goes off? So what if our counter-battery fire kills them in minutes? They could saturate Seoul in VX persistent nerve agent in a matter of minutes if they feel like it.

Open sources guess the North Korean chemical stockpiles at 5,000+ tons.

That's ignoring ballistic missiles... crappy Scud-Bs can range over almost all of South Korea, and Nodongs range over about 90%+ of Japan.

By way of contrast, Iraq can shoot some conventional Scuds into Israel, maybe. Big difference.

It isn't a question of if the U.S., or even South Korea by itself, could beat North Korea. It is a question of how horrible a mess it would make in the meantime. :eek:

[Tamara]

That's what I'm getting at. This is the latest and strongest indication that the Illustrious Fraternal Joyous Being (or whatever this weeks official name for the nimrod is) is completely off his nut.

He stands to gain nothing but a stack of dead South Koreans and/or Japanese, world approbation, and Pyongyang left in ruins from retaliatory strikes. Even the Chicoms are sidling away from him faster than the posse members in Unforgiven got away from "Little Bill" Daggett.

[gburner]

IMHO, they hope to gain a foothold in Asia larger than their footprint would suggest is appropriate. The North Koreans have seen the emphasis put on WMD by this administration in it's suspicion of Iraq and intend to stand our policy on it's head by their 'in your face' attitude. On the one hand, they threaten massive regional upheaval if anyone stands in their way; on the other they say they want negotiation with the US over a slate of issues. In short, it's a rather insane gambit that may well spell the end of that country as we know it. Perhaps they think that we cannot fight the 'war on terror', keep Sadaam in the box and deal militarily with them as well. They are delusional as well as paranoid. My sense is that it would be easier to form a coalition against the North using MAJOR players than it has been forming one against Iraq thus far.

Chinese ground troops invade across the Yalu, US airpower reduces North Korean command and contol infrastruture as well as attriting sizeable portions of the PDRK Army and 40K US troops (along with our South Korean allies) at the DMZ block the North's road south. A swift hammer and anvil operation. I think China will see that it is her best interests as an emerging World Power to eliminate this 'client' state. North Korea will learn, the hard way I'm afraid, that if you play with the Big Boys they play rough and they play for keeps.

The BIG problem will be how to keep the mushrooms off of the pizza.

[M1911]

So what if our counter-battery fire kills them in minutes?I thought I had read somewhere that many of their artillery pieces near Seoul are in tunnels -- drive it out, shoot, drive it back in. Hard to eliminate even with accurate counter-battery fire I would think.

[4v50 Gary]

Starve them out. In the meantime, we'll broadcast McDonald, KFC, Burger King, Wendy, Round Table, Red Lobster, Sizzler and other chain restaurant ads to them. We'll combine the ads with reports on unhealthy "obese" Americans and after a while, they'll either die of starvation or revolt against their own government.

[Baba Louie]

It'd sure be interesting to know what ArmySon et al are thinking and doing in this regards... but if he told me he'd probably have to kill me and I'm not quite ready for that.

Chess at an incredibly complex level (or high stakes poker where the other guy isn't interested in winning as we know it), playing against someone who doesn't think like you think, doesn't act like you'd expect them to... Hmmm, maybe that's what we need to do as well.

Guess I'd better read up my Sun Tzu again and see what I can glean.

China as an ally?

Adios

[Sean Smith]

Well, I heard the North Korean ambassador speak at a press converence on one of the cable news stations... wow. A very strange spectacle of double-speak. For instance (paraphrasing):

-----
We have no intention of making nuclear weapons right now. So we must quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty immediately so we can not make them. Any U.N. sanctions will be an act of open war. But we will gladly demonstrate to the U.S., who is out to get us and is lying about everything, and not the U.N., which is a puppet of the U.S. and is lying about everything, that we are not making weapons.
-----

I kid you not. I'd call it schitzoid, but that would be unfairly characterizing the mentally ill. It didn't even have any kind of internal logic if you assume for a moment that we ARE Satan.

:confused: :scrutiny: :what:

Maybe they think they can blackmail us into giving them more goodies. So far Bush isn't buying it... "we don't give freebies for acting mental and breaking treaties, sorry," seems to be the White House take on it. Or maybe they know that their more-Stalinist-than-Stalin monster is going to fall apart anyway, and want to go out in a blaze of glory... or a haze of neutrons... or whatever.

[Sean Smith]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what if our counter-battery fire kills them in minutes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I had read somewhere that many of their artillery pieces near Seoul are in tunnels -- drive it out, shoot, drive it back in. Hard to eliminate even with accurate counter-battery fire I would think.

That's true, I was just saying that in a worst-case scenario (for North Korea) they could still nerve gas the hell out of South Korea. So the reality is probably worse than my example suggests.

[Yanus]

I wonder if W hasn't parked a Trident "boomer" off the coast of N. Korea, just in case. It would solve the "million man army" problem and the ballistic missile problem in about 6 minutes.....


Yanus

[Malone LaVeigh]

Another perspective from the BBC:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0110-02.htm

Published on Friday, January 10, 2003 by the BBC
North Korea Follows Bush's Lead
by Daniel Plesch


North Korea has decided to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, invoking its legal right to do so.

The move increases international tension and the risk of Japan reconsidering its position on nuclear weapons.

But it is in line with the new approach to global security adopted by the Bush administration.

President George W Bush has either withdrawn from or expressed his opposition to implementing a number of key global arms control agreements.

These include:

* the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty;
* the Biological Weapons Convention;
* the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
* and the process of strategic arms reductions with Russia....

At the same time as withdrawing from these treaties, the Bush administration initially withdrew from the political process with North Korea designed by former President Bill Clinton, and which had rolled back but not entirely removed North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes.

'Double standard'

President Bush's policy has swept away the achievements of decades in building global controls on the worst of weapons.

Having been persuaded to resume the diplomatic process, Mr Bush decided in January 2002 to include North Korea in the "axis of evil", a decision that that country interpreted as tantamount to a declaration of war.

In these circumstances the North Korean regime would appear to have nothing to lose in building a weapon that the West has long declared as having a deterrent effect.

It appears that North Korea obtained substantial help from Pakistan in its recent nuclear activities including assistance with a highly enriched uranium factory.

Pakistan's apparent help to Pyongyang came despite its vaunted alliance with the US in Washington's so-called war on terror.

The US was apparently unable to stop - or even learn about - Islamabad's rumoured support of North Korea's nuclear programme until it was too late.

Washington turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear programme despite the close links between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the oft repeated statements from leading Pakistani nuclear officials that they see their bomb as an Islamic weapon.

If there is any programme that might be associated with Osama Bin Laden then the Pakistani one has to top the list.

'Bombast'

President Bush and his advisers have pursued a policy of military options against proliferation and yet in reality even baulked at seizing a cargo of Scuds en route to Yemen.

In the meantime they have presided over the collapse of sanctions on India and Pakistan for their nuclear testing and have accelerated North Korea nuclear crisis.

By any objective measure their policy has been ineffective and has made the world situation more unstable.

Their own rhetoric and policies of pre-emptive strikes - perhaps with nuclear weapons - encourage other states to assume that they live in a world of nuclear anarchy and to act accordingly.

President Bush's policy has swept away the achievements of decades in building global controls on the worst of weapons and replaced an effective policy with nothing more than bombast.

Copyright © 2003 BBC

[PATH]

I am not optimistic. This could lead down the path top war. It is up to the Chinese to keep the peace. The North Koreans will not push their luck with their neighbor to the north! If the Chinese do not act then there will be war!

[Sean Smith]

Published on Friday, January 10, 2003 by the BBC
North Korea Follows Bush's Lead
by Daniel Plesch


North Korea has decided to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, invoking its legal right to do so.

It has also declared any U.N. sanctions as a result of that to be an act of war... a statement so nutty even Iraq has never said anything comparable.

The move increases international tension and the risk of Japan reconsidering its position on nuclear weapons.

Riiiiight...

But it is in line with the new approach to global security adopted by the Bush administration.

President George W Bush has either withdrawn from or expressed his opposition to implementing a number of key global arms control agreements.

These include:

* the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty;
* the Biological Weapons Convention;
* the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
* and the process of strategic arms reductions with Russia....

The difference being, not only did the U.S. negotiate/discuss the changes exensively with everyone involved in the treaties, but we also didn't threaten to start World War III with anyone who disagreed with us... unlike North Korea.

At the same time as withdrawing from these treaties, the Bush administration initially withdrew from the political process with North Korea designed by former President Bill Clinton, and which had rolled back but not entirely removed North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes.

... Because the North Koreans were blatantly cheating on it?

'Double standard'

President Bush's policy has swept away the achievements of decades in building global controls on the worst of weapons.

"Achievements" such as India, Pakistan and North Korea becoming nuclear-armed states during the CLINTON administration?

Having been persuaded to resume the diplomatic process, Mr Bush decided in January 2002 to include North Korea in the "axis of evil", a decision that that country interpreted as tantamount to a declaration of war.

An IRRATIONAL interpretation. By way of contrast, virtually EVERY PUBLIC STATEMENT by North Korea has been tantamount to a declaration of war... and we have ignored them.

In these circumstances the North Korean regime would appear to have nothing to lose in building a weapon that the West has long declared as having a deterrent effect.

"Nothing to lose" except the economic aid that keeps their Stalinist dictatorship afloat.

It appears that North Korea obtained substantial help from Pakistan in its recent nuclear activities including assistance with a highly enriched uranium factory.

A country that became nuclear-armed during the Clinton administration

Pakistan's apparent help to Pyongyang came despite its vaunted alliance with the US in Washington's so-called war on terror.

An alliance that happened AFTER the aid just referred to.

The US was apparently unable to stop - or even learn about - Islamabad's rumoured support of North Korea's nuclear programme until it was too late.

The US president being... Bill Clinton!

Washington turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear programme despite the close links between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the oft repeated statements from leading Pakistani nuclear officials that they see their bomb as an Islamic weapon.

Yeah, the Clinton administration blew it again.

If there is any programme that might be associated with Osama Bin Laden then the Pakistani one has to top the list.

Except that there is no evidence that that is so. Oops.

'Bombast'

President Bush and his advisers have pursued a policy of military options against proliferation and yet in reality even baulked at seizing a cargo of Scuds en route to Yemen.

So if the Bush administration shows restraint, they are bad. And when the Bush administration doesn't show restraint, it is bad. Hmmm....

In the meantime they have presided over the collapse of sanctions on India and Pakistan for their nuclear testing and have accelerated North Korea nuclear crisis.

Nuclear testing that took place amidst the muddled Clintonite policies of the day...

By any objective measure their policy has been ineffective and has made the world situation more unstable.

No.

Their own rhetoric and policies of pre-emptive strikes - perhaps with nuclear weapons - encourage other states to assume that they live in a world of nuclear anarchy and to act accordingly.

Except that nuclear pre-emption has never been stated or implied as U.S. policy. Oops... caught making things up again!

President Bush's policy has swept away the achievements of decades in building global controls on the worst of weapons and replaced an effective policy with nothing more than bombast.

Global controls that completely failed in the administration BEFORE Bush's. Again, oops!

[Tamara]

I'm beginning to wonder if some of these knobs at the BBC are living in the same dimension as me... :confused:

[Malone LaVeigh]

I agree the article is a little too heavy on "Things were groovy in the Clinton days," but Bush has done his share of screwing things up, too. And it's a bit far-fetched to blame Clinton for India and Pakistan getting the Bomb. India exploded it's first nuke in 1974. Pakistan was more secretive, but probably has had nukes since the early to mid 80s.

Contrary to popular belief, Clinton isn't guilty of everything bad that's ever happened.

The important thing is that Bush has done a lot to sabotage an array of nuclear proliferation treaties. That doesn't leave us with many legal options for containing N. Korea.

[Waitone]

It is a time honored tradition of all states that when the ruling class gets into domestic trouble there is a tendency to create international confrontation. Helps to divert attention away from the cause of domestic displeasure.

Korea is a stalinist paradise complete with an absurdly big military, mass starvation, and internal dissent. The US made the situation worse by cutting off oil and whatever.

I think the walls are closing in on the ruling class.

BTW, this is a neighborhood problem. Where are the south Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese? None of these countries want a nuclear NK. Why don't they step up. Better yet, if SK is in an appeasement mode, pull the US troops home and let SK deal with the issue.

Appeasers can appease only because someone else is holding a gun.

[Tamara]

Contrary to popular belief, Clinton isn't guilty of everything bad that's ever happened.

You mean he didn't sink the Maine? :confused:

[Dennis Olson]

We've been in WW III since 9/11/01. It's just that the shooting hasn't started yet...

[Gabe]

Here's why China is such a big player in all this:

China is the number one trade partner of North *AND* South Korea.

South Korea is the number two trade partner of China (after Japan)

China supplies 90% of North Korea's electricity, 50% of fossil fuel, 50% of food.

95% of North Korean troops are deployed along the DMZ. The border with China is almost defenceless.

Millions of refugees would leave for China if Beijing allowed it.

So if China really really wants to get rid of Kim Jung Il, I doubt they have to fire a single shot. I don't think they are in any hurry though. Only last year Bush was calling them "strategic adversary", so they're probably not all that keen on helping just because we ask for it. They'll wait until US has expended much political capital and is willing to trade favors.

[Lennyjoe]

Amazingly enough the South Korean public down here where I am aint too worried about it, Yet. Some good articles in the Korean Times about the newly elected President trying to get Russia and China involved too. Big meeting the third week of Jan in Seoul for North and South Korea diplomats. Will be interesting to see what comes out of that.

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

Nuke'm till they glow then shoot them in the dark!

GIVE ME! GIVE ME! GIVE ME!

What is it with us giving things to everybody crap. You know what? If the world has a problem with us I feel we should pull back from everything (Germany/S.Korea/Bosnia etc.) and let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of our country being beaten up and bruised for helping out the world. Hold back on all the money going out to Egypt and all the other muslim countries and let them fall apart. Stop the rice shipments to N.Korea and let them starve to death. Take care of house and home first. Put up the balistic missle defense around the country and watch the show. I'm tired of being beat on!:fire: :cuss:

[4v50 Gary]

I'll agree with Dennis Olson on WW III (historically the Chinese consider WW II as having started in 1935 when Japan invaded Manchuria). Unless Saddam Hussein resigns, we're going into Iraq. I'm hoping we don't tackle Pakistan, but we may well at which point they'll drop the bomb. Ugggh. Either that or we focus in on Korea. I doubt if China will want to wrassle with us over Korea, but they've got the bomb so we have to consider the acceptable casualty level both to our troops there and over here (hey, they could have a bomb somewhere outside of country sitting on a dockside waiting to be shipped upon demand).

[Bostonterrier97]

The SMARTEST move that the US can take is a Airstrike against the North Korean Facilities.

Which is preferable..eventually going to war with a NUCLEAR armed Stalinist Regime in the Future or going to War this year with a Non-Nuclear Stalinist Regime ?

Why Go to War? North Korea has a VERY LONG and WELL documented series of VIOLATIONS of the Cease Fire Agreement. Many of these VIOLATIONS resulted in the direct and intentional KILLING of US Servicemen on the DMZ.

Is it worth it to NEGOTIATE with a STALINIST regime which Views Treaties with the Orthodox Communist Ideology, that TREATIES are meant to be BROKEN? "We will sell the Capitalists the Rope by which we will Hang them with"?

Remember this regime more closely resembles STALINIST Russia than the Post Stalin Soviet Union.

I'd Say..use Cruise Missles armed with Neutron Warheads and Wipe out North Korea's CCC Capabilities, Air Force and Army Bases. And BOMB its Key Industrial Facilities.

Tyrants need to REMEMBER that the US Not is NOT only the LARGEST Armed Power on the Planet but that it WILL NOT Shy away from using its Nuclear Weapons.

[Sean Smith]

Military action against North Korea is something I would not take lightly. Not to say I would have anything to do with appeasing them... one of the big rules of international relations is to not let yourself be blackmailed by people so piss-ant that they can't afford lunch. And I wouldn't be worried about ultimately defeating them... South Korea could probably do that on their own. The problem is they have too much artillery, and too many chemical weapons handy, and too many targets... unlike Iraq, who can only use Scud missiles to get more Likud party members elected in Israel, North Korea can actually kill off lots of our allies in the first minutes of a war pretty much no matter what we do. Nukes are almost besides the point there... I'm talking chemical weapons and conventional artillery.

With a dumb enemy and decent strategy, anybody can win more or less painlessly (as wars go... grading on a curve here) in Iraq. The same does not hold true for North Korea. There, you are talking about degree of horrible human disaster. The closest thing I can think of to a "clean" fight starts with using tactical nukes on all the dug-in North Korean heavy artillery emplacements in a pre-emptive strike out of the blue. That would take their chemical weapon delivery down to manageable levels and prevent a mass bio-chem slaughter in Seoul in the first 5 minutes of the war. Take down everything that could possibly be a WMD site, then invade with conventional forces and dismantle the whole damn place one rock at a time.

[TexasVet]

North Korea vs everybody else on the planet. That ought to last about half the time that the last Iraqi war lasted with MUCH less left standing in the North of that little peninsula.
True, a lot of the South end would be bent, broken and burning. But the North end would be smoke and ash 20 minutes after the first chemical, biological or nuke hit the South.
And they know it.

[Seeker]

He stands to gain nothing but a stack of dead South Koreans and/or Japanese, world approbation, and Pyongyang left in ruins from retaliatory strikes. ...and yet the US will end up giving them billions more worth of oil (not the way I'd like to see my tax dollars spent!). The whole concept of the US being threatened/held hostage/blackmailed like this with a strong potential for APPEASEMENT makes me angry!

I am reminded of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the new sheriff (Cleavon Little) takes himself hostage says Nobody moves or the nig*** gets it!

Chinese ground troops invade across the Yalu, US airpower reduces North Korean command and contol infrastruture as well as attriting sizeable portions of the PDRK Army and 40K US troops (along with our South Korean allies) at the DMZ block the North's road south.

Followed closely by war with China, over some imagined slight that gives the Chinese the excuse to engage us.

[clem]

"smoke and ash".

Ya, I'm going to miss then too.

[Bruce H]

Kind of makes one want to dig up Harry Truman and kick his bony tail. Amazing, all the endless things that come back to haunt you.

[Waitone]

When this Korea thing broke out my first reaction was "Looks like Sadaam just told Bush to check his six."

The longer it goes on the more convinced I am that Sadaam just opened a second front on the US. It seems that every time the US announces troop, equipment or materiel movement to the gulf, Korea comes out with one more move. Tit for tat it appears.

I am convinced terrorism will break out in the US just as soon as the US moves against Iraq. I now believe Korea will do something stoopid at the same time. Who knows, we may get into a saloon fight with all members of the axis of evil all at the same time. Whatever Bush does in Iraq needs to be fast, violent, and without apologies.

[Blackhawk]

NK wants to be considered as a powerful, rouge state that must be placated with money and deference.

Tragic, really.... :rolleyes:

[Selfdfenz]

"I wonder if W hasn't parked a Trident "boomer" off the coast of N. Korea, just in case. It would solve the "million man army" problem and the ballistic missile problem in about 6 minutes....."

Yanus,
My guess is yes. And one or more in the ME as well.

At some future time 20-30 years from now I believe there will be all kinds of info released about what the US had positioned here and there to cover this or that possibility. Release of that info might not even be that far away time-wise, but I bet the assets are positioned and have been for some time.

S-

My guess is we have peps on the ground in Iraq looking over the situation and have had for some time now. Don't know if the UN Inspectors will ever find proof of WMD but I bet the US has been looking for some time and may have a few areas of Iraq circled in red.

[Skunkabilly]

When people have to run away TO China, something's wrong.