North Korea.

[stateofgrace]

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/10/14/ap30912 06.html

Today the UN passed a resolution condemning North Korea for carrying out an atomic test.

They voted over whelming to impose sanctions and declared North Korea to be a clear threat to international peace and security.

I have started this thread in the hope of gauging opinion as to how those that view America as nothing other than the new crusaders would deal this situation.

So, even though this is outside the remit of 911. How should the west react to North Korea?

Are we war mongering to face them down; are they really a threat to world security as promoted by the US?

Imagine you are the leader of a western country, how would you deal with this?

Just asking questions

[chek]

[stateofgrace]

And that's it chek?

No current policies, no alternatives, simply scoff and walk away?

The big bad US that you scold at every opportunity leads the west towards a possible confrontation with a new nuclear power and you have no answers.

Are you not going voice your outrage at US globelism, US expansionism? After all is this not part of the New Pearl Harbour that you have been going on about?

So now you have you chance, voice your objection before the event? Voice an alternative. Maybe try to condemn the New World Order.

Where do you really stand, shouting from the side lines after each mistake is made or can you not voice your opinion until it is made?

North Korea? What should the US do about it?

[John White]

Does the US have to do anything about it?

What threat does Noth Korea pose that China and Russia do not? Especially if the US sticks to its course of going hell bent into Iran: North Korea is going to be a small problem then

Who, in fact, is North Korea supposed to be using its Nuke/s on? and how is it going to deliver it?

The best thing the US could do is lead by example and get with a new global decommisioning programme:sorry I dont know whats in the pipeline on that front, just making a common sense observation

In this world of smoke n mirrors I dont know if the north Koreans want to play with the big boys, want to defend themselves against invasion, or are simply playing the part of "Problem in need of Solution" in a globalist agenda, but I dont feel any more unsafe with North Korea having a Nuke than with anyone else

The one rumour I have heard is the Israel'is have suggested Korea might advance Iran's weapon programme, but this a) might not be true and b) might be meaningless even if it was... does Iran actually have a weapons programme to advance? Controversy still rages

Anyway, for the now the UN imposing sactions seems unavoidable (cos its already happened) and probably inevitable, but I dont know enough to say if thats a good thing or not

[chek]

Nuclear States then:
USA, Russia, UK, France, PR China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa.

Nuclear States now:
USA, Russia, UK, France, PR China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea

"And who indeed imagines that, in the absence of a global effort to deal with nuclear danger in its entirety, anyone can tear Kim Jong Il away from his new device? He cannot feed his own people, yet he holds all Asia hostage to nuclear destruction. It is all he can do, this strange dictator presiding over his pitiless regime, now holding the pitiless weapon, which spares no one, in his hand." Jonathan Schell
(my emphasis added)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061030/schell
(article mirrored here)
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1014-26.htm

The NPT - not idiot threats - is surely the only viable way to deal with this future potential military horror and current economic horror.
Do I feel the world is less safe today now that NK will soon have a micro-capability while yesterday known aggressors (see list above) had them anyway? Even adding Iran to the list doesn't alter our collective peril one iota.

The only realistic answer there can be is: 'get real - get NPT back on the road'.

[pepik]

[John White]

So your saying you do feel threatened by N.korea having a Nuke Pepik?

Why?

(as in: does North Korea "hate our freedoms"?)

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

And who is the greatest threat to 'global security and stability'?

Kim Dae Jung of South Korea managed to achieve a historic step towards building links with the oddball ruler of North Korea; his nobel peace prize was richly deserved. Oh, what's this?; the most powerful nation on earth and an old enemy deems North Korea part of an 'axis of evil' (whatever that means).

What wonderful diplomacy.

What possible weapon could perhaps make a vast warlike superpower with more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world put together think twice about attacking?

hmmmmmm...

Let's be frank here; if you're on the White House sh*t list, getting hold of nukes is your one big chance of survival.

And let's ask a question - who's conducted more unprovoked invasions, financed and otherwise supported terrorist campaigns, threatened, bullied
and bombed than anyone else in recent history?

If some great big bloke with a long history of violence said he wanted to do you in and was thinking of coming round with a gun, if you had the chance to buy a gun yourself, do you think you might?

Oh, I'm forgetting - the 'West' is so much more restrained and responsible - 'dear leader' is certainly a complete lunatic, no question.
But Korea doesn't have the largest nuclear stockpile on earth.
Hasn't conducted any unprovoked invasions recently.
Hasn't ever actually used nuclear weapons.
Hasn't worked very hard to develop smaller, 'battlefield' nukes that can be used in standard warfare.
Even if it was a desire, hasn't got the actual capability to achieve 'full spectrum dominance'. Guess who has?

The best policy towards North Korea is to leave them alone and try long term diplomacy.
Sanctions will hurt an already starving populace (they worked soooo well in Iraq, didn't they? What was that word Hans Von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday from the UN used? I think it might have been genocide, you know.)
You could never invade and 'bring democracy' (cue howls of laughter) - that little adventure would make Iraq look like a picnic.
Airstrikes would bring any retaliation they had and put a really bad crimp on any South Korean's day.

Frankly, I'm far more scared of the United States and its deranged leaders than anyone else. To me, it beggars belief anyone can give North Korea a second thought in comparison. Who's more likely to start a major war?

Why did Israel, Pakistan and India get away with developing nukes?
All of whom are loose cannons.

Until the nuclear powers learn to practice what they preach, they should shut the f**k up.
I exclude the UK from this, as our nuclear arsenal is totally inoperable without the US. We just pay for some of theirs. We just do are we're told so we can pretend we still matter.

Depressingly, we can await the next 'biggest threat since Hitler' as people allow themselves to get all excited about the enemy of the day without once questioning whether they may be the bad guys too.

Of course, such thoughts constitute 'AntiAmericanism'. Curiously, by this criteria, I must also be "AntiBritish', 'AntiSaudiaArabian', 'AntiIsraeli', 'AntiZimbabwean' George Bush must have been 'AntiIraqi' and AntiAfghan' as well as being 'AntiNorthKorean' and AntiIranian'.

Remember, kids; the state ain't the people.





I






[/i]