North Korea

[shade]

Such bullshit. It sure as hell didnt work when Clinton did it, so why the hell are doing this again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/asia/23CND-KORE.html?hp

[Viceroy]

"Create an Account"

No thanks.

[shade]

The United States today presented North Korea with a proposal for phasing out its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security guarantees, as senior Bush administration officials acknowledged softening their hard-line stance to jump-start negotiations with Pyongyang.

James A. Kelly, the chief American negotiator, presented a proposal to his North Korean counterparts on the opening day of six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing, a senior administration official said, adding that "it was time to start getting specific" in the so-far-inconclusive negotiations.

American officials said North Korea rebuffed an invitation to hold a private meeting on the side of the six-party talks to discuss the proposal in more detail today. The North Korean delegation, which put forward its own plan at the talks, had no immediate reaction to the American offer.

The talks, the third round of negotiations involving China, Japan, South Korea and Russia as well as the United States and North Korea, are expected to continue through Friday. Expectations for achieving a breakthrough at this round remain modest.

Under the American plan, North Korea would have to fully disclose its nuclear program, submit to inspections and pledge to begin eliminating the program after a "preparatory period" of three months.

In exchange, the reclusive regime of Kim Jong-Il, the North Korean leader, would receive shipments of heavy fuel oil to meet its energy needs, be granted a "provisional security guarantee" by the United States, and see the lifting of some sanctions.

The proposal, which American officials said was first presented to them by South Korea earlier this month and was modified in Washington, is a combination of ideas put forward in earlier rounds of talks.

Administration officials described the proposal they made as "more tangible and more specific" than any offered in the past and expressed cautious optimism that the talks were "headed in a new direction" now that they had a firm proposal on the table.

The administration appears to have eased its opposition to engaging in detailed negotiations with North Korea, which President Bush once labeled as member of the "axis of evil." Last summer, when negotiations first got under way, Mr. Bush said that providing any benefits to North Korea before it completely abandoned its nuclear program would be like submitting to blackmail.

But as the talks progressed, Asian diplomats argued that the North Koreans were willing to engage in substantive negotiations and discard their weapons program for the right incentives. China, South Korea and Japan have all urged the United States to bring a concrete proposal to the latest round or risk being seen as recalcitrant.

"We did think it was a good time to offer a proposal because colleagues and allies urged us to do so," one administration official said.

Another American official said that China had persuaded the United States that it was worth supporting economic change in North Korea, noting that Mr. Kim had undertaken some experiments with markets that deserved international support.

Significantly, a senior administration official said that the new plan does not require North Korea to accept the precise formula for resolving the standoff, the "complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement" — known by the intials C.V.I.D. — of its nuclear program that the administration had insisted was its bottom line in any agreement. In previous rounds, the same official had suggested that North Korea would have to agree to that wording before discussions of any benefits it might receive could commence.

The official said C.V.I.D. was still the goal of the United States. But he said that the repetition of that demand and the suggestion that North Korea had to give up it nuclear program before it could expect benefits had "inflamed sensibilities" at earlier rounds.

A Bush administration official said that in the planning sessions held before the formal opening of today's talks, the North Korean negotiators continued to deny that they have a program to enrich uranium to make nuclear fuel in addition to a plutonium program, which the North has acknowledged having.

American charges that the country has a secret uranium enrichment program, first broached in 2002, were the original cause of the current standoff, and Bush administration say they have gathered more evidence since that time to support the charge.

It was unclear whether the new American plan requires North Korea to specifically acknowledge having a uranium enrichment program in the first stage of any agreement. But American officials said addressing the uranium program was an indispensable part of their plan.

North Korea also seems likely to push for a considerably longer timetable for phasing out its weapons program than the United States advocates, in part to receive more benefits along the way.

[Viceroy]

Well at least something is being done about North Korea. Funny that after Bush labelled North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, they promised to turn the United States into a "sea of fire" and promply started testing long range missiles. Oh, well, Iraq's down, maybe North Korea is next. Dare I say that Bush will go for the more prudent, less gung-ho, diplomatic approach with North Korea?

[Mr. Ram]

North Korea is no Iraq they have a pretty good military and really good commando units. If the US where to attack North Korea the North would bomb the shit of Seoul and japan with scud missiles. I dont think their is gonna be a peacefull outcome here if a war does break out their is gonna be heavy casualties for the Alllies. Best thing to do is let the South and Japan build nukes i know its a risk but i dont think the North would attack the South if they knew a mushroom cloud was waiting for them if they attacked the south. I really doubt the NK would use nukes against the US North Korea knows that would be suicide.

[shade]

Dare I say that Bush will go for the more prudent, less gung-ho, diplomatic approach with North Korea? The problem is that President Clinton did exactly the same thing in 1992 or 1994. Guess where that money went? More nukes.

[Karajan]

The problem is that President Clinton did exactly the same thing in 1992 or 1994. Guess where that money went? More nukes.

Then what do you suggest?

[Hagel]

Dare I explain the absurdity of the situation? I have a tendency to delve deep into the problem and I can see precisely what is going on.

They cant go in militarily because the losses would be tremendous and they desperately need more men in Iraq. They cant reason with them because the Koreans know not to deal with the devil. America cannot be trusted, as has been proven time and again. So they resort to appeasement, its the only viable choice.

However I think it may be part of a bigger plan. Perhaps in the long run Mr. Bush hopes North Korea will get cocky and attack South Korea which will be a valid excuse for conscription in America to fight the RED MENACE. And also it will enable them to divert troops to Iraq which is in desperate need of reinforcements.

[chris_78660]

Best thing to do is let the South and Japan build nukes i know its a risk but i dont think the North would attack the South if they knew a mushroom cloud was waiting for them if they attacked the south
yeah, thats the idea...
we should let every country produce and amass nuclear weapons, because the only stalemate would be the threat of retaliation! that's a GREAT idea!

lunitics have and DO run countrys (look to historical figures for clarification), and if you think i'll sit around hopeing they won't fly off the handle and launch a missile, then you're a fool.

[Mr. Ram]

yeah, thats the idea...
we should let every country produce and amass nuclear weapons, because the only stalemate would be the threat of retaliation! that's a GREAT idea!

lunitics have and DO run countrys (look to historical figures for clarification), and if you think i'll sit around hopeing they won't fly off the handle and launch a missile, then you're a fool.

What makes you think they will use a nuke. A country hasnt used a Nuke on a country for almost 60 years if they want to get nukes let them have them why should only NK have nukes if the south feels threatened they should build them too. In the cold war nukes werent used so why the hell do you think they would be used now.

[chris_78660]

In the cold war nukes werent used so why the hell do you think they would be used now.
as i said before we were LUCKY that a nuclear war didn't break out during the cold war. LUCKY...

unfortunatly, not everyone in the world shares our rationality and idealogy.
example:
give to men of different nationality and religion who hate each other a gun, and have them point their gun at each others head. tell them that if one of them fires first, theres a chance they'll kill the other one before he can fire back. what do you think will happen? when does one of them get to relax?

[Ironhorse]

By bargaining with North Korea on their disarming aren't we sending a message that if any country is able to develop a somewhat succesful nuclear program then they will have tremendous gains at the bargaining table? Nukes are becoming the trump card. Who will be the next to use Nuclear weapons to gain international support?

[shade]

Then what do you suggest? I would suggest we tell China do deal with their little brother. I would point out to China that if NK attacks SK or Japan, we will use nuclear weapons against North Korea (because Hagel is right for once about casulties) and the radiation from the nukes would have a negative effect on China.

and they desperately need more men in Iraq. Even if we werent in Iraq, we would not want a military confrontation with NK.

They cant reason with them because the Koreans know not to deal with the devil. America cannot be trusted, as has been proven time and again. So they resort to appeasement, its the only viable choice. blah blah blah america sucks blah blah blah

However I think it may be part of a bigger plan. Perhaps in the long run Mr. Bush hopes North Korea will get cocky and attack South Korea which will be a valid excuse for conscription in America to fight the RED MENACE. Oh yes, because Bush's goal in life is to kill as many people as possible :rolleyes:

we should let every country produce and amass nuclear weapons, because the only stalemate would be the threat of retaliation! that's a GREAT idea! Well, only every country that we will be friends with forever. So I would say let Japan build nukes, not SK ;)

[chris_78660]

i HOPE north korea is next...
not saying that i want to go to war with them, but i certainly want their nukes disabled, putting them back in a position that doesn't threaten the security of the world.

just getting them to say they wont shoot at us, isn;t gonna cut it.....unless you let kerry into office

[Mr. Ram]

[QUOTE=chris_78660]i HOPE north korea is next...

Sure let more Marines and Soldiers fight someone else's war im sure when they comeback home missing limbs or in bodybags their families will appreciated. The US should arm SK like they do Israel let them deal with it if they wanna kill each other fine. If the US does attack NK the consequences will be huge im pretty sure the US doenst want a fight with NK not cause they would lose but the high cost we will have to pay with troop casualties. If the US does attack SK and japan better be on board it would have to be a quick strike just overwhelm them with our firepower that would be the easy part but then the hard part would come eventually ground troops are gonna have to go to the mountains and finish the job and that will not be easy at all expect the worst if war breaks out with NK.

[chris_78660]

Sure let more Marines and Soldiers fight someone else's war im sure when they comeback home missing limbs or in bodybags their families will appreciated.
football players play football, teachers teach, and soldiers fight...
so what you're saying is that we should cater to any need NK moght have?
we should bow down to a over zealous communist country because they have a leathal weapon?

just to let you know, north korea is OUR problem, not just SK. north korea has threatend us and would most definatly attack.

[shade]

We should let one of our most loyal allies, which we lost thousands upon thousands of troops to gain as an ally, be threatened with nuclear annihilation?

[Mr. Ram]

just to let you know, north korea is OUR problem, not just SK. north korea has threatend us and would most definatly attack.

The Soviet Union and cuba threatened us too and we didnt attack them did we. This is not our problem our troops shouldnt fight for SK unless NK attacks the 30,000 US troops in the DMZ which i doubt NK would do they know the US would unleash hell on them.

[chris_78660]

The Soviet Union and cuba threatened us too and we didnt attack them did we. This is not our problem our troops shouldnt fight for SK unless NK attacks the 30,000 US troops in the DMZ which i doubt NK would do they know the US would unleash hell on them.
seeing that we have troops in SK i would think it's pretty safe to say THEY ARE OUR PROBLEM
you completly dodged my first question...i'll repeat
give two men of different nationality and religion who hate each other a gun, and have them point their gun at each others head. tell them that if one of them fires first, theres a chance they'll kill the other one before he can fire back. what do you think will happen? when does one of them get to relax?

[Mr. Ram]

give two men of different nationality and religion who hate each other a gun, and have them point their gun at each others head. tell them that if one of them fires first, theres a chance they'll kill the other one before he can fire back. what do you think will happen? when does one of them get to relax?


Thats a stupid question what does nationality and religion have to do with this they both have the same beliefs only one is communist and the other is not. As for relaxation who gives a fuck the cold war lasted more then 40 years the US and Soviet Union where in high alert all the time and what happened nothing. Fuck relaxing if the US relaxed on defense it wouldnt be the Power it is now. SK should not relax they should be on high alert and if they feel bullied by NK they should build nukes and deal with them the US shouldnt have to be their bodyguard all the time SK has had 50 years to build their military strenght against NK but they chose not to wanna why because of the US protecting their asses its time they got their defense up to the level of NK so the US after 50 years could finally get the fuck out of Korea.

[chris_78660]

so you want to live in fear for another 40 years?
and nationality and religion have everythign to do with what i said. you can't just say "i want this small nation to have nuclear programs, but i don't want this small country to to have them". you might as well arm the whole world, right?

every one and their mother should have nuclear weapons to keep everyone in check?

come on....think for a second and realize that everything you've said in this thread is complete bullshit.

[Mr. Ram]

Oh yeah when the cold war was happening i remember being scared shitless of those commies bastards yeah right. Why dont you just admit your willing to sacrifice as many troops as possible so you wont be scared.

[chris_78660]

Oh yeah when the cold war was happening i remember being scared shitless of those commies bastards yeah right. Why don’t you just admit your willing to sacrifice as many troops as possible so you wont be scared.
if it came down to it I would fight to keep my family safe and secure. if that meant "sacrificing my life" then it would be a decision i would make by joining the military, and an honorable decision at that.

don't bitch out and pretend that soldiers don't fight or die. that's what they are there for. they also live through combat, liberate countries, and one time a very long time ago they preserved our freedom from a facist dictator.
the fac tof the matter is that we train them to KILL and pay them to defend our security, and if this isn't a security situation, i don't know what is.

i think it's completely ignorant to think that every country should have nuclear weapons to keep the peace. one wrong decision by a nations leader whose not "in his right mind" could possibly end the world.

you should slap yourself for being so ignorant...

[Mr. Ram]

What the fuck are you talking about when did i say every country should have nukes i said japan and SK should their being threatened with nukes so why shouldnt they have them.

[Thvggee]

So I guess democracy is going for a monopoly on nukes, eh?

[King_Nothing]

ok so Mr. Ram every country that is being threatened by Nukes should automatically get them for defense? Lets say that relations between the U.S and Japan go bad and then countries such as the Phillipines, Vietnam and other southeast asian countires are then threatened by hostile Japan? Do we give them nukes too? Fuck, lets just give the whole world a nuclear arsenal so everyone can keep everyone in check

[chris_78660]

What the fuck are you talking about when did i say every country should have nukes...
why just those two? why not everyone? after all, anyone "in their right mind" would never commit suicide by using the weapons......right?

once again, you dodge a point that proves yourself ignorant....did i say ignorant? i meant ignant, in what you preach. for god sakes, back your shit up.

[Mr. Ram]

why just those two? why not everyone? after all, anyone "in their right mind" would never commit suicide by using the weapons......right?

once again, you dodge a point that proves yourself ignorant....did i say ignorant? i meant ignant, in what you preach. for god sakes, back your shit up.

Ok you being ignorant lets give nukes to canada,el salvador,mexico,greece,ireland etc. Because those countries could have a mushroom cloud over them any second. I dont see anything wrong with allies of the US having nukes ok. If they want to protect themselves i dont think the US should sent our troops to fight for other countries unless their being invaded im pretty sure if SK had nukes NK wouldnt invade SK. When castro had nukes he would of nuked the shit out of the US if they invaded cuba but guess what the US didnt invade cuba because they knew that castro was willing to sacrifice the Island if their was a invasion.

[JerkyMyTurky]

ok so Mr. Ram every country that is being threatened by Nukes should automatically get them for defense? Lets say that relations between the U.S and Japan go bad and then countries such as the Phillipines, Vietnam and other southeast asian countires are then threatened by hostile Japan? Do we give them nukes too? Fuck, lets just give the whole world a nuclear arsenal so everyone can keep everyone in check

If you look at how the United States is approaching Iraq and North Korea about the WMD issue, they are sending the wrong message to the world. They are attacking Iraq (which was attempting to get WMD, but obviously had no weapons when they were attacked) and negotiating with North Korea (which is jumping up and down, threatening the United States with WMD, which it claims to have). Let's take Iran for example, they look at this and tell themselves, "hey, look at that, the United States is negotiating with the North Koreans, because they have WMD and they are attacking Iraq, which is may try to get WMD or may "have" them and are a threat, we better get WMD, so that United States wont attack us." This is the wrong example to set to the world. We attack a nation that is supposedly trying to obtain and further their WMD and WMD program, because they pose a potential and "imminent" threat, while North Korea has WMD and threatens to pre-emptively strike the United States, but they are no threat, lets just negotiate with them. Does any of this make sense? I think it is complete and utter bull shit, this whole approach to Iraq and North Korea. Axis of Evil claim of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, I think North Korea was just thrown in there to make it seem as if the United States was not just biased against the muslims nations. Let me make this as clear as possible...

North Korea = "We have WMD and we will if further threatened by the United States, pre-emtively strike." = Imminent Threat = United States negotiates with North Korea

Iraq = "We have no WMD and we don't want any trouble, send in more inspectors." = No Threat = United States bombs the shit out of Iraq

Yup, makes alot of sense to me. :rolleyes:

[chris_78660]

I dont see anything wrong with allies of the US having nukes ok.
no, not "ok"...
bin laden used to be an ally :eek:

through out history we have warred with our allies at some time or another.
just because some one is our friend today, does not mean they will be our friend 10 years from now.

for the US and the UN to proactively look for WMD's, but allow only the current friends of america to own them is ridiculous. once again, please slap yourself.

[wataba]

no, not "ok"...
bin laden used to be an ally :eek:

through out history we have warred with our allies at some time or another.
just because some one is our friend today, does not mean they will be our friend 10 years from now.

for the US and the UN to proactively look for WMD's, but allow only the current friends of america to own them is ridiculous. once again, please slap yourself.

i agree, and we don't need to trigger tons of nuclear arms races all over the globe, especially in asia where china is an emerging superpower, and when we're trying to halt the spread of WMD's (and i am aware that the US government has expressed interest in bringing 'tactical' nukes into the arsenal...)
but seriously, one of the reasons these middle eastern countries started researching chemical and biological weapons was to act as a halfass response israel acquiring nuclear weapons

[Mr. Ram]

no, not "ok"...
bin laden used to be an ally


Yes but bin laden was just one person not a fucking country SK has been are friend for more than 50 years. Bin laden is just some piece of shit radical islamic.

Why dont you fucking slap yourself. Yeah i see the US going to war with Japan and SK soon they have too much invested in the US.

[chris_78660]

Yes but bin laden was just one person not a fucking country.
why are you so dense?...there are instances where ONE PERSON runs a country.
just bite the bullet and chalk this up as a loss. your idea was ignorant, impractical, and hypocritical.

[Bergs]

Sure let more Marines and Soldiers fight someone else's war

The threat of nuclear missiles aimed at our soldiers in SK, our economic interests across the region, and perhaps even our west coast does not qualify as "our" war? Then WTF does?

[Mr. Ram]

why are you so dense?...there are instances where ONE PERSON runs a country.
just bite the bullet and chalk this up as a loss. your idea was ignorant, impractical, and hypocritical.

Once again what are you talking about bin laden never ran a country he was just a CIA operative thats all. Look you believe in what ever the fuck you wanna believe. I believe the US should arm SK to the teeth like the US does Israel i dont see why you dont like the idea of letting an allied get nukes if NK doesnt stop making them and keep on threatening SK by telling them their gonna turn Seoul into a sea of fire then they should at least have something to make NK think twice.

What do you think would happen if China built a new weapon that would make a hydrogen bomb look like nothing and they told the US stay the fuck off China and Taiwans problems or we are gonna use it on you do you honestly think the US would want to negotiate bullshit they would try to build a equal or more powerful weapon. So go ahead and make your ignorant statements about you hoping the US goes after NK im sure the familes of the several thousand troops we lose over their are gonna have the same thoughts you have.

[chris_78660]

Once again what are you talking about bin laden never ran a country he was just a CIA operative thats all.
saddam ran a country, hitler ran a country, stalin ran a country, and the list goes on...
So go ahead and make your ignorant statements about you hoping the US goes after NK im sure the familes of the several thousand troops we lose over their are gonna have the same thoughts you have.
i NEVER said we should go to war with them, hell, i hope we never have to fire a bullet at them. NK is showing us that matters can be settled diplomatically, and we'll have to pursue the path of least resistance first.
what i said was that i hope they are NEXT....in fact here is what i said:
i HOPE north korea is next...
not saying that i want to go to war with them, but i certainly want their nukes disabled, putting them back in a position that doesn't threaten the security of the world.


by the way, i'm one of those families...

[Asbestos Crayon]

I say we bribe them by sending over all the dogs and cats we have in the nation's animal shelters. We get rid of unwanted pets, and they solve their food shortage problem.