Topic awaiting preservation: North Korea prepared to launch pre-emptive strike? (Page 2 of 2)

I think the big question is not whether we can walk and chew gum (dealing with Iraq and NK), although I did read something somewhere suggesting we can't, but is it can we deal with the different problems in different ways. This whole crisis has been triggered by their lumping in with the 'Axis of Evil' and more recent comments by Rumsfeld. NK are more ammenable to diplomatic solutions than Saddam but they have now been thrown into fll defensive mode and it might be a bit tricky drafgging them back from this. I know it suited Bush and Co to create the spectre of a big wide ranging international menace from 'rogue states' to further the war on Iraq but this has worsened the situation in NK which could turn into an equally big problem.

So what I'm trying to say that we need a range of solutions to the varied problems facing us but the focus on Iraq has meant that we seem to be trying to force all the pegs through the round hole and that is going to result in the loss of an awful lot of corners.

tomeaglescz:

quote:

---

Just because a nation has a different ideolgical grounding does not give the us a right to challenge its sovriengty

---

I'm afraid the US has been doing this for decades (I think mobrul posted a list including Cuba, Peru, Nicargua, etc.) - its just under a different disguise (as it said it was the War on: Reds -> Drugs -> Terror) but it is still the same result - large numbers of civilian casualties and not an awful lot of progress.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Cooooooo things are happening at quite a pace these days. As a follow up to the IAEA pos. referring NK's non compliance to the UN Security Council:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2751509.stm

It appears that has just happened - Cuba and Russia absained from whatever vote it was.

NK's neighbours SK, Japan and China are against further sanctions prefering a diplomatic solution and NK would see such sanctions as a declaration of war.

So can we walk and chew gum (or treat our naughty children in different ways)? It looks like we'll see as both these crises wil come to a head in the next couple of days.

And I found the article on whether we the ambulation/mastication issue:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,879616,00.html

quote:

---

Officials in the Bush administration, and in Whitehall for that matter, like to insist that they can walk and chew gum at the same time: that they can take on Saddam without taking their eye off the ongoing battle against Osama bin Laden and his followers. But experience suggests otherwise. One veteran of the C*****n White House admits that, during the Kosovo war of 1999, that conflict was "the only show in town". There are only so many hours in the day and "all the meetings, all the phone calls, all the faxes" were taken up with fighting Slobodan Milosevic: there was no room for anything else.

---

and 'ah well that was C*****n' isn't a good enough response to this

And that was Kosovo - this is an order of magnitude larger than that.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Actually, my response was in response to WS' huge laundry list of DPRK shananigans, and I was looking for a solution for the problems we face with both Iraq and NK from him.

I liked your thoughts on a solution, Suho, even though you weren't commited to any of them.
They made plenty of sense.

WS has never laid out an alternative solution to the way the US is handling things now, only negativity about how the US is handling things.
Okay, fine, we should focus on North Korea first, and not Iraq.

So I ask, if he wants a pre-emp... he says he doesn't know.
I say military action is the only way with this guy.

I would like to hear WS say force is the only choice we have if we want to deal with either of these madmen.

That's all I want.

I swear it is the best way to "contain" them.
Time is a factor, indeed.

So lay out your plans then.

Genis, he cant possibly suggest an action, which results in a peaceful situation, because there isn't one. You don't need to know whats right, just to know something is wrong.
Regardless of whether the US attacks Iraq first, North Korea first, or doesn't attack, its a virtual certainty that there will still be further terrorist action against the United States.

Furthermore,
If America goes into Iraq, and then terrorists attack the US, the anti-war people will say, "we told you so".
If America doesn't go into Iraq, and then terrorists attack the US, regardless if the administration tries to work out a peaceful settlement, the same people who were once anti-war will say, "You knew they were going to attack us, and didn't do anything".

Its lose-lose, I'd say their best bet is to let the inspections drag on as long as possible, then attack quick, and hard on Iraq. There will always be US military support in Israel, which helps somewhat with any crises that arises in the middle-east, and hopefully if the US shows they're serious, and attacks Iraq (a country which likely doesn't have the Nuclear capability to launch an assault on the US), N.Korea will decide to avoid war, and come to some sort of resolution, which would be good, even if it doesn't mean complete disarmament.



[This message has been edited by Dan (edited 02-12-2003).]

Sometimes, after all the news stories, discussions, and fighting, I find it difficult to not suggest that we nuke them all to hell to get the rest of the world to fall in line...

... but I guess I just did.

Why is it that everyone posts when I'm asleep?

First off, genis: I misread your post, and thought it was directed at me. It seems that I overreacted, and my comments were inappropriate.

Secondly, I want to preface any further comments with a bit of an explanation. As I'm sure you can imagine, I'm in a rather difficult spot here. I am an American through and through, and I love my country. But I also happen to live in Korea, and I love this country as well. No, it's not my "first" country, but I consider it my second. When it comes to football matches between the US and Korea, I root for the US--but I know far more about the Korean side.

I want to talk for a moment about the idea of the US pulling its troops out of South Korea. For starters, a majority of Koreans do not want US troops out of South Korea. Those who do are in the minority (especially in the government), but they are a very vocal minority. That's why you always hear of protests against US troops over here. But I'm curious--did the US media report on the pro-US demonstrations they had over here? While that very vocal minority was demanding that US troops be withdrawn after the incident with the two girls, some in the majority decided that they didn't want to minority to have the only voice--they went out and held a demonstration of their own, shouting about how they wanted the US to stay. I don't know if that was reported in the US media, since I don't really have access to it.

But let's face it, the issue of the US withdrawing its troops here has nothing to do with what Korea wants--but it has everything to do with what the US wants. It's a threat, really, the US saying to Korea: either you toe the line, or we're going to leave you to the wolves.

Bear with me for a moment while I get all idealistic (and somewhat sarcastic). The last I checked, Korea was an ally of the US, not a feudal vassal. The way its supposed to work is Korea allows the US use of land and resources to station troops here in return for cooperation and protection. What I'm seeing is much more of a feudal relationship: do what the lord wants of you, and he'll protect you, but cross him and you're screwed. I haven't checked many American thesauruses lately, but I'm pretty sure that "ally" is not a synonym for "lackey." There must be a new edition out that I'm not aware of.

Back to reality. I am not naive. I am fully aware that might makes right, and that if Korea had the power we'd probably see the same thing going the other way. In fact, I think Korea would be worse--Koreans are very nationalistic, xenophobic and intolerant (but maybe they're that way because they don't have the power. My head is spinning). But this is the way things are now, and it should be apparent that, whether Koreans realize the need for US troops in the region or not, they are not pleased with the nature of the relationship. The US completely ignores Korean opinions on North Korea, rejecting out of hand anything that doesn't fit in with the US masterplan. Is it any surprise, then, that Korea has decided to form its own policy independent of the US. Korea is a sovereign nation, and it has been dealing with North Korea every day for the past fifty years. It's not something you can just walk away from here, or put on the back burner. It is the reality that every Korean faces every day, the "reality of division," as they call it.

The US has now made North Korea its problem, and like it or not the US has to do something about it. Korea will continue to take a "soft line" stance toward North Korea. Do I think that's the best way of deaing with the problem? I'll be honest with you: I just don't know. A few years ago I was vehemently opposed to the Sunshine Policy, but as time goes on I find myself agreeing with it more and more. I think a policy of tolerance may be effective, but I do not believe in going in blind (as Kim Dae-jung did*). North Korea is not to be trusted, and dealing with them is like walking into a pit of vipers. If we go in blindly, flailing our arms around, we're going to get killed. But if we go in with our eyes open, and with a good measure of caution, we might be able to accomplish something.

Will Korea continue in this vein if the US threatens to withdraw troops? That's a good question. North Korea refers to South Korea as the "primary enemy"--I've read enough North Korean media pieces to be frightened by the rhetoric that they use when talking about South Korea. I am firmly convinced that North Korea would take the first opportunity to invade South Korea and unify the peninsula under their socialist regime--and if South Korea didn't have any outside help, I don't think they would be able to stop them from doing so. But the policy toward the North goes to the very heart of South Korea, and I really don't know what would happen if South Korea were forced to choose between US troops and their policy toward the North.

So the question remains: what is to be done about North Korea? Left to its own devices, South Korea will maintain the status quo, and Japan is certainly not eager to get involved. China is a bit harder to read, but it's safe to say that they don't want conflict in the region and (more importantly) they certainly don't want any more US troops in the region than there already are.

The final variable in this screwed up equation is the US. Bush leaned toward a diplomatic solution at first, but the rhetoric has grown harsher on both sides. I'm obviously against a pre-emptive strike on either side (or any military action at all, if the truth be told). I hope that this can be solved peacefully, but if the US insists on imposing its will on North Korea, I really don't see how that can be possible. Something has to give in order to avoid war, and I don't see North Korea giving--any concessions on their part weaken their position and put them at a disadvantage in terms of defending themselves.

For now, all I can do is just watch, wait and pray. I told my wife that if war broke out we should go to the US, but she wants to go to her parents' house in the countryside. I was opposed to this at first, but now I wonder. Perhaps my destiny is here. Is it better to leave and know that I may never be able to come back, or to risk death here? Common sense would urge the former, but I am not convinced. This is my wife's land, and I have friends and family here. There is a Korean saying: "Shintoburi"--four Chinese characters that mean "body and land cannot be separated." The US is the land of my birth, and I love it, but everytime I visit I know that it is just that: a visit. There always comes a point where I feel in my heart that it is time to go home, and home is here. I'm still holding on to the hope that I won't have to choose, but if that time ever arrives, don't be surprised if I tell you I'm staying here.

Sorry for the long babble here. This was as much from the heart as it was from the head, so I'm not sure it was all that coherent. I'm sorry if I can't look at this objectively, but I find it hard to be dispassionate. This is, after all, my life.

[Edit: Heh... totally forgot that I was going to put a little note down here for that asterisk up there...

*There are allegations in Korea now that former president Kim Dae-jung "bought" his famous visit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il--it is said that he gave North Korea a large sum of money for use in their nuclear program in exchange for a visit that would boost his image (and eventually help him get the Nobel Peace Prize). This hasn't been verified as 100% accurate (and so I imagine that it hasn't been reported much in the foreign media), but the general opinion here is that it is probably true. If and when this is verified (or refuted) I will post about it.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-13-2003).]

Suho1004:

quote:

---

Why is it that everyone posts when I'm asleep?

---

My suggestions would be:

a) You are narcoleptic.

b) You live on the other side of the world.

Taking into account how busy you are and your geographical position I would go with option b).

Do I get a prize?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yeah, you get a prize... come on down to the basement and I'll give it to you...

~Strange lighting and screams in the basement~

I wonder where Emps is?

Once again, things are heating up in North Korea here. A few juicy 'bits' out of the article

quote:

---

Up to now, North Korea has violated the Armistice Agreement over 430,000 times (up to May, 1997), not only with innumerable provocative acts inside the demilitarized zone but also with many infiltrations into the South, e.g., an armed commandos' raid on the Blue House, Korea's Presidential office(1968), the hatchet killing at Panmunjom (1976), an armed commandos' infiltration aboard a submarine off the coast on the East Sea (1996), and many others.

--Korean Armistice Agreement

---

And in this article, North Korea is considering withdrawing from the Armistice Agreement, which would then mean a return to war.

quote:

---

North Korea is threatening to pull out of the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War.

A statement published Tuesday by the official Korean Central News Agency accused the United States of planning to break the 1953 agreement by setting up a naval blockade around the Korean Peninsula. The statement, issued in the name of the North Korean army, said a naval blockade would be "little short of an open declaration of war," and would give Pyongyang no choice but to pull out of the agreement.

The armistice is the key legal document that keeps an uneasy peace on the divided Korean Peninsula. The agreement was signed 50 years ago by China and North Korea on the Communist side and by the American-led United Nations Command, representing allied forces on the South Korean side. The armistice has never been replaced by a peace treaty, which means that North Korea and South Korea are still technically in a state of war, half a century after the end of the Korean conflict.

--VOA

---

The situation, in light of the 'planned' US-South Korean military exercises, is getting worse. Tensions are very high.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-18-2003).]

North Korea has never taken the armistice seriously. Like everything else, they only whip it out when it suits their needs, and just blithely ignore it when it doesn't. Kim Jongi-il (like his father before him) is the spoiled kid who does whatever he wants with a complete and total disregard for everyone else. And that is what he is--a child. A slightly psychotic child with nuclear capability, but a child nonetheless.

I'm a bit fed up with all of this, if you couldn't tell...

Just looking at current events, the US seems to be employing double standards for itself. They can launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that's threatening them, but if someone else does the same, oooh, you're a threat to world peace.

RN3: Without getting into the nitty-gritty details here, my statement above has nothing to do with the US' actions. It's just a general pissed-offness at North Korea and their lying ways.

You really don't want to be around me right now. I'm just not in the best of moods.

Ram, you never cease to amaze me.

You *obviously* either haven't read or haven't paid any attention to anything else in the rest of this thread.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose....

If ignorance were bliss, DL, there would be a whole lot more smiling faces in this world.

whatever happened to "inocent until proven guilty" :/

why is the last post on 2/18 and yet the thread says it's 2/21?

That was extremely weird. I must have hit every type of refresh I know of to get the latest. On two completely different machines on completely different networks... nevermind