quote:

---

India test fired a nuclear-capable, long-range ballistic missile on Sunday from a range off the country's eastern coast but the launch was not entirely successful, reports and defence officials said.

---

The Agni 111's range brings major Chinese cities into play; analysts said if China was not seen as a threat to India, the missile makes little sense.

Stargazer wrote:

quote:

---

We're at war with Oceania this month.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What, no outrage? No sanctions? No talk of "evil empires"? No media panic?

---

Very few would classify India and North Korea as being similar threats to peace.

quote:

---

Very few would classify India and North Korea as being similar threats to peace.

---

So, okay, who decided Israel is less a threat than Iraq? And why is India, always close to the edge with Pakistan, less of a threat than NK? And who is the arbiter of these things? Dick Cheney? You know you can trust Dick.

But this guy might disagree:

quote:

---

More than anything, North Korea wants assurances from the administration that they will not be attacked. The issue is downplayed in the media because the forth estate would like to obscure the fact that the US rules the world through the threat of force. The administration will not sign a “non-aggression pact” with North Korea because that would undermine its role as the global Mafia chieftain who keeps the weaker states in line by breaking legs. The Bush people think it would be unseemly for the world’s only superpower to seriously address the security needs of its underlings.

Mike Whitney

---

Now, me, I don't know. I always thought the threat came from nuclear weapons. But apparently not.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Now, me, I don't know. I always thought the threat came from nuclear weapons. But apparently not.

---

It’s not as simple as that. Russia and China both have many, many more nuclear weapons that North Korea will probably ever have. No one is up and arms about Russia and China having nukes. They aren’t, in contrast to North Korea, rogue countries run by certifiable nut-case leaders.

So, yes, it matters who has the nuclear weapons.

Personally i think Kim Jong-il deserves a round of applause for poking the Bushwhackers in the eye by daring them to try and stop him. But anyone who has followed the Korean sideshow knows that this is much more about bluff and bluster than about any actual danger to anyone. One thin K. J-il does is play the game of brinkmanship with as much arrogance and self-righteousness as any born-again evangalist out of the U.S. bible belt.

More power to him imo

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: otter ]

quote:

---

They aren’t, in contrast to North Korea, rogue countries run by certifiable nut-case leaders.

So, yes, it matters who has the nuclear weapons.

---

Would it matter what nutter ruled what nation if no nations had nuclear weapons? Pakistan is rather unstable but their nukes are good nukes, yes? Becuase Mussharif is a freind of our nutter, correct?

But I do understand: Nuclear weapons do not obliterate people; nutters do.

Just thought of this-- Truman: A nutter?

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Personally i think Kim Jong-il deserves a round of applause for poking the Bushwhackers in the eye by daring them to try and stop him. But anyone who has followed the Korean sideshow knows that this is much more about bluff and bluster than about any actual danger to anyone. One thin K. J-il does is play the game of brinkmanship with as much arrogance and self-righteousness as any born-again evangalist out of the U.S. bible belt.

---

I realize that many people hate America’s foreign policy and see anything that hurts Bush as being a positive. If the issues regarding North Korea were only matters between the North Koreans and the Americans, your comment might make some sense. But, this isn’t as simple as being a “poke in the eye” of America and its myopic to view the matter in those simple black and white terms.

quote:

---

ts myopic to view the matter in those simple black and white terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Oh, I see. And we know that China and Russia will always be ruled by level headed individuals unlike say, I don't know, the US, say, which is governed by a nutter like no other.

---

Who knows who will be leading China and Russia in ten, twenty, fifty, or more years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
You mean like good and bad; rogue state and ally?

---

The Americans’ relationship with the Russians, for example, is not a simple black and white issue. Our relationship with the Russians (and with the Chinese) is much more nuanced and complex than that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
It's kept the Americans from doing to them what they did to Iraq.

---

This single-minded focus on the Americans ignores all of the concerns of the other countries. Did you not read today that the Japanese government is looking at the legality (under Japanese constitutional law) of a pre-emptive military strike against North Korea’s missile bases?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
It's kept the Americans from doing to them what they did to Iraq.

---

You have it backwards.

The Americans had no interest in invading North Korea when North Korea did not have nuclear weapons (i.e., for the last fifty years). Now, you are arguing that North Korea needed nuclear weapons in order to prevent an invasion? It was North Korea’s desire to get nuclear weapons that sparked recent (last ten years) discussions about attacking North Korea.

MacArthur discovered that a land war in Asia isn't feasible. Look at the problems with putting enough "boots on the ground" in Iraq today, Sven.

Mao Zedong warned General Douglas MacArthur not to cross the Yallu River into China. Dougie wouldn't back down from Mao. The Yanks and Canucks were overrun the next day by over three hundred thousand Chinese and Korean soldiers who snuck in on foot under cover of darkness.

I think talks of nuclear strikes are either political sabre rattling or outright madness. At the same time, we know and understand that a "small scale" nuclear strike will be tried by some country at some point. I don't believe N. Korea will launch an armed icbm at any country.
We know that the hawks cant stand anyone representing a challenge to their supreme authority. Socialism or barbarism.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
So many babblers focus on the Americans to the exclusion of all other considerations (“If it’s bad for the Americans, then it’s good. If it’s good for the Americans, then it’s bad. All other factors, and the views of other countries, are irrelevant.”)

---

This is probably true, but undoubtedly because we sit near the centre of the Empire. The entire spectrum of readily available media in this country depict the entire world as either "local" and reachable by American power or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
We know that the hawks cant stand anyone representing a challenge to their supreme authority. Socialism or barbarism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Also, as far as the supposedly non-Americo-centric decision by Japan to research first-strike possibilities, do you suppose that Japan would EVER consider such a course of action without the backing of the U.S.? Fat chance. The optics of sending American missile carriers to Japan this week was a demonstration of solidarity and allegience but also - considering the history of Japan and the U.S. - a statement of Imperial interests on the part of the Americans.

---

Actually, I think it’s just the contrary. If the Americans had not provided Japan with nuclear and conventional military support for the last many decades, the Japanese would have gone nuclear a long time ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

If it's simply a matter of American hawks not being able to stand "a challenge to their supreme authority", why are the French, Chinese, Russians, Germans, Japanese, etc. so concerned about North Korea getting nukes? It's not all about America.

---

Sven, there were hawks who wanted to drop the big one on North Korea in 1953 in order to draw China and Russia into a nuclear war. They were willing to murder hundreds of millions of people to kill an idea, but in a more instantaneous and less costly manner than they had to resort to in Vietnam. I believe there were hawks wanting to drop one on Vietnam then, and Cambodia might as well have had nukes dropped on them after the madman and the doctor were finished with that country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Sven, there were hawks who wanted to drop the big one on North Korea in 1953 in order to draw China and Russia into a nuclear war. They were willing to murder hundreds of millions of people to kill an idea, but in a more instantaneous and less costly manner than they had to resort to in Vietnam. I believe there were hawks wanting to drop one on Vietnam then, and Cambodia might as well have had nukes dropped on them after the madman and the doctor were finished with that country.

The UN member nations at that time told Truman to give MacArthur the hook. Sven, do you imagine the thinking around the Pentagon and Washington has advanced at all since 1953 ?.

---

Yeah. Cuz the "idea" that Washington wanted to destroy in 1953 has since essentially self-destructed.

It’s simply not plausible to think that the USA wants to attack North Korea for any reason other than Kim Jung Il’s decision to obtain nuclear weapons. If the USA had wanted to attack North Korea, why didn’t the USA do it before North Korean nuclear weapons became an issue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
And off we go again in a made debate to see who is 'most right' or 'more righteous'.

Lest we forget, Kimmy is a master at political posturing, despite all his other failings as a leader, and there is no more need to be concerned about North Korea using its nukes than there is for any of the other aggressive posturers.

---

1) The world powers want to make an example out of North Korea. Who has nuclear weapons is important, and if north korea can have them, then very clearly anybody can. Is a world where everyone has nukes a better place? The current thinking is that answer is no.

2) The eventual unification of the Koreas is a preffered idea by many, and nuclear weapons capability would possibly prolong the death and demise of the north korean regime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
...there is no more need to be concerned about North Korea using its nukes than there is for any of the other aggressive posturers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Actually, I think it’s just the contrary. If the Americans had not provided Japan with nuclear and conventional military support for the last many decades, the Japanese would have gone nuclear a long time ago.

---

You misunderstood me, and for my part, I wasn't clear: when I said "first strike" I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons, but of pre-emptive strikes on North Korea's missile bases as you discussed in your previous post.

But even still, your point reinforces the notion that this situation, and in particular Japan's role in it, cannot be taken out of the context of American Imperial interests so your admonition that "rabblers" are too Americo-centric is way off base.

quote:

---

The only way it makes any sense for Japan to spend countless billions of dollars building a more robust military is if Japan is concerned about the USA backing Japan up.

---

Again, Japan's decision making is all within the context of American Imperial interests. And doesn't the sending of American vessals to Japan, complete with large-scale media coverage say the opposite to Japan? Is there any coincidence that this is all happening just as Japan's political leadership was in the United States hanging out with the president in a personal context, like the trip to Graceland? The point is that the U.S. has gone out of it's way to show Japan that they are friends - few leaders get personal face time with Geo. Bush let alone a big media spectacle like the one we saw.

Moreover, as far as Japan upping it's military capabilities, the other side is that the U.S. may want exactly that so that the combined threat posed by their own military and a more robust Japan is an even greater counterbalance to North Korea and China. Imperial adjuncts, proxies, outsourcing, whatever you want to call it, if the U.S. has decided on a course of "quiet" containment of China (as they seem to have with their interests in Central Asia, India, Pakistan, Japan, etc.) a more robust Japan checks Chinese influence over a key economic power in East Asia. Japan has already tied into American Imperial ventures in Iraq. In short, there is every reason that Japan would expand it's military because the U.S. will back it up. Otherwise a 'soft-power' approach might make a lot more sense. Japan on it's own could not defend itself against China, even with a vastly improved military. But a stronger Japan with U.S. backing is a force to be reckoned with.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

I think that the Japanese, in the instant case, are, by being this aggressive in their rhetoric, "merely" trying to apply pressure on China to pass UN Security Counsel sanctions against North Korea.

quote:

---

FM, if you would like to make an argument for why you think it would be a good idea for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, I'd love to hear it.

---

I also noted you seem to think that much of the argument is an anti-US argument but meanwhile you are echoing US war propaganda of a "rogue state" etc ...

I was just reading today that Yemen is planning on nuclear power for domestic energy use. So Yemen can build nuke planst but if Iran is it must be for less than peaceful means. Tell me something, Sven, in the last 50 years how many nations has Iran attacked and how does that compare to the US and Israel?

You also say the US has not attacked NK in the last 50 years. But Bush has only been in power for six of those years, he has declared NK part of the so-called Axis of Evil and has refused to guarantee NK's security from attack which is what they have asked for in return for giving up their nuclear program. And the same, coincidentally, is true of Iran.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I also noted you seem to think that much of the argument is an anti-US argument but meanwhile you are echoing US war propaganda of a "rogue state" etc ...

---

So, you wouldn’t call North Korea a “rogue state”? This isn’t merely “US war propaganda”. The governments of Western Europe and Japan certainly view North Korea as a rogue state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I was just reading today that Yemen is planning on nuclear power for domestic energy use. So Yemen can build nuke planst but if Iran is it must be for less than peaceful means.

---

Russia offered Iran nuclear materials that could be used for peaceful energy production. Iran refused it. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Tell me something, Sven, in the last 50 years how many nations has Iran attacked and how does that compare to the US and Israel?

---

Right. The USA is more evil than Iran. How many governments in the world believe that? France? Germany? Japan? Italy? Russia? China? I don’t think anyone of them would put Iran at the same level as the USA, and certainly not above it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
You also say the US has not attacked NK in the last 50 years. But Bush has only been in power for six of those years, he has declared NK part of the so-called Axis of Evil and has refused to guarantee NK's security from attack which is what they have asked for in return for giving up their nuclear program. And the same, coincidentally, is true of Iran.

So who really threatens world peace and who is the real rogue state? Maybe step outside your US inspired information box for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of the "enemy".

---

As I said above to Jingles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
You have it backwards.
The Americans had no interest in invading North Korea when North Korea did not have nuclear weapons (i.e., for the last fifty years). Now, you are arguing that North Korea needed nuclear weapons in order to prevent an invasion? It was North Korea’s desire to get nuclear weapons that sparked recent (last ten years) discussions about attacking North Korea.
If Kim Jung Il had not begun to seek nuclear weapons back in the 1990s, there wouldn’t be much of a North Korean issue today.

---

quote:

---

So, you wouldn’t call North Korea a “rogue state”? This isn’t merely “US war propaganda”. The governments of Western Europe and Japan certainly view North Korea as a rogue state.

---

quote:

---

Russia offered Iran nuclear materials that could be used for peaceful energy production. Iran refused it. Iran wants nuclear weapons.

---

quote:

---

Right. The USA is more evil than Iran. How many governments in the world believe that? France? Germany? Japan? Italy? Russia? China? I don’t think anyone of them would put Iran at the same level as the USA, and certainly not above it.

---

quote:

---

People in European and Muslim countries see US policy in Iraq as a bigger threat to world peace than Iran's nuclear programme, a survey has shown.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5077984.stm

---

It seems you would be wrong.

How can you argue this issue at all with a straight face? You clearly are apologizig for failed and dangerous US foreign policy that has resulted in an expansion of the arms race and placed the world on an even more dangerous footing.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No. The term "rogue state" is a propaganda term used to discredit states unfriendly or outside the sphere of Washington. It is interesting to note that Western Eurooe and Japan are US military allies and France and Britain both have nuclear weapons along with the US.

---

Please name one country (other than North Korea, of course) that has taken the position that North Korea should have nuclear weapons.

Why will you find none (or, at most, extremely few)? Because it is nearly universally understood that North Korea is a rogue state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It seems you would be wrong.

---

If you care to read my post more carefully, I was specifically referring to “governments”, FM, not opinion polls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
How can you argue this issue at all with a straight face?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What makes a rogue state if not flagrant disregard of international law? And in that respect how is the US not a rogue state?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Yeah. Cuz the "idea" that Washington wanted to destroy in 1953 has since essentially self-destructed.

---

You know, Sven, your country spent trillions of taxpayer dollars on a cold war Keynesianism to prove that communism would "collapse on its own."

And there are almost 900 U.S. military installations around the world still, Sven. The Russian's still aren't spending half their GNP on military. So what's with all these military pieces in other countries for - to protect us against a threat that doesn't exist ?.

quote:

---

It’s simply not plausible to think that the USA wants to attack North Korea for any reason other than Kim Jung Il’s decision to obtain nuclear weapons. If the USA had wanted to attack North Korea, why didn’t the USA do it before North Korean nuclear weapons became an issue?

---

Because MacArthur discovered that a land war in Asia isn't feasible. Mao Zedong warned General MacArthur not to cross the Yalu River into China. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Korean troops mobilized to the border under cover of darkness. Our guys had to get the hell out of there in a big hurry the next day, Sven.

quote:

---

Like I said earlier, it’s ass-backwards to argue that the North Koreans needed nuclear weapons in order to prevent an American attack.

---

quote:

---

Please name one country (other than North Korea, of course) that has taken the position that North Korea should have nuclear weapons.

---

Sven will, of course, soon be providing us with a list of countries that have taken the position that 'any' country should have nuclear weapons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Saddam had no nukes, and 1.5 million Iraqi's are dead since 1991, Sven. The U.S. military beckoned women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night during operation "shock" and appall. You saw it with your own eyes on CNN. If you were Kim, a leader whose nation has already experienced war with the U.S., cold war threats, trade embargos and blockades of humaniarian aid illegally according to the UN, and very similar to the way in which it was waged on Iraq since 1991 in softening the people up with hunger and disease in what is a desert country, what conclusions would you come to about the shadow government, CIA and Pentagon, Sven?. Do they have a history of making rational decisions after bombing 21 countries since Nagasaki and Hiroshima ?. Which of them is more democratic for it today ?.

---

I knew you supported Fidel, Fidel, but I wasn't previously aware that you were such a strong defender of Kim.

I suppose if the USA took the advice of Pat Buchanan and pulled all troops out of South Korea, Japan and the rest of Asia and, as Buchanan said the other day, left the North Korean problem up to the Asian countries to deal with, that North Korea would magically get rid of its nuclear weapon ambitions and all of the problems would go away once the bad ol' meanie USA left the scene?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
What would you consider to be acceptable loss of life in toppling Kim Jong-il?

---

As was pointed out here in this Washington Post op/ed piece by two former Clinton administration officials, we don't need to topple Kim. We could simply bomb the North Korean missile site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Sven, the U.S., France, India and several more nations have tested nuclear weapons. So why does N. Korea get the centre of attention ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
As was pointed out here in this Washington Post op/ed piece by two former Clinton administration officials, we don't need to topple Kim. We could simply bomb the North Korean missile site.

---

And then a few U.S. war planes get shot down. Next thing you know, you've got a war on your hands. Maybe China steps in like they did in 1953, Sven. Of course, Raytheon, McDonnel Douglas
and maybe Haliburton shares would soar to new heights. That would be acceptable to prominent Republican party members and wealthy friends already owning stocks in those companies. But I would think that scenario to be a tremendous conflict of interest, wouldn't you?.

quote:

---

You think that nuclear France is as big a threat to the world as a nuclear North Korea? You're joking, right?

---

How many times has N Korea attacked anybody except UN troops on its own soil, Sven?.

Many people on the scene dont have much illusions about North Korea, yet they still want US to get out.
Much has been done by both North and South about reunification(I'm not saying its close though).
US did much to ruin the peace after Bushwacker's Axis of Evil speech 5 years ago. Nedless to say it wasnt constructive, since we're dealing with a paranoid insecure state.
anyway like some CNN pundit said, Kim feels forgotten and probably wants attention.
The point is, South Korea is the most vocal about peace talks and violently opposes sanctions.
If you cared to research,Sven you'd see that many SOutherners want to damn the US torpedoes and make Americans leave. They civilians think US hawks has been greatly complicating Korean situation for decades.
Please dont use that 'us and them' terminology, since last time I checked we're not in US. The entire world is reeling from this idiotic cowboy diplomacy, with Bush admin deciding who's 'rogue' and provoking these countries.
I would not defend KIm, yet he eould have rested till today in his passive belligerence if not for dumb rhetoric of American imperialists.
Strawmen will not work here, since it s not such a clearcut issue here.
Want to learn a complicating factor?(just one among many)
Well, did you know that Japan is 2nd highest military spender in the world(far after US naturally)?
Well ponder on that and use black-and white framework on something thats more simple.

ETA: I didn't know a lot of that, BetterRed. Thanks for the information.

[ 10 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

You think that nuclear France is as big a threat to the world as a nuclear North Korea? You're joking, right?

---

Surely. The bigger the number of nukes you have, the more likely you are to threaten to use them. The Cold War proved this, with the two biggest players getting us closer to annihilation than anyone else. If you only have a couple of warheads, without the means to deliver them very far, you tend to be a little more careful about where and when you fire them. They are expensive things, and if you don't have the time and money to make more, then their use as a political and diplomatic umbrella (their primary function) is compromised by using them up.

I ask you this Sven - what about states that have a long and glorious history of aggressive attacks on other states, or even a history of using nuclear weapons? Who is the greater threat? A nuclear armed Israel, Pakistan, India, U.S.A. or North Korea? Do you honestly believe that North Korea actually intends to use the damned things and assure their almost immediate destruction?

Are you arguing that North Korea is less rational than other states?

[ 11 July 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

If you care to read my post more carefully, I was specifically referring to “governments”, FM, not opinion polls

---

That is the point, most government are beholden to the US, check out ours. So while democracy is mostly dead, people do hold opinions, and a small majority would say the US does appear to be the greater threat. Espescially when you consider what it would take for Korea to engage in a ground war. Why would they want to attack anyone? Can you answer this. What greivance to they have. I don't remember them looking out for their strategic aims like some countries do.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could make an argument as to why every other country but NK and Iran should have nuclear weapons.

---

quote:

---

Why will you find none (or, at most, extremely few)? Because it is nearly universally understood that North Korea is a rogue state.

---

quote:

---

If you care to read my post more carefully, I was specifically referring to “governments”, FM, not opinion polls.

---

quote:

---

The timeline was thus: North Korea seeks nuclear weapons followed by hints of a USA attack on North Korea. Again, if North Korea hadn’t sought nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t even be a discussion about a possible USA military attack of North Korea. If fact, North Korea would likely not even be on the world’s radar screen of concerns.

---

No. That is utter bullshit as the US forces in the region have always been there as a force of intimidation and threat rather than deterrent. SK is well able to look after itself but US forces remain as an Imperial force, acting as an Asian flank to Chinese and Russian interests, and a threat posed directly at NK. Even the most rudimentary foreign policy analysis will tell you that.

quote:

---

we don't need to topple Kim. We could simply bomb the North Korean missile site.

---