It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea says talks or "a nuclear missile"

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
AGIT8,

I don't like the idea of leaving it solely with China either, but everything this Admin has touched has turned into a farce. They are like the Anti-Midas. China at least can smack them down, and if they choose they will have to reap what they sow. If the US does it, China again will have to reap what we sow - which, IMO, is exactly how most of this world got this way. Too many people making decisions that effect others, without their approval or consent.

If the Us can get a half decent group of nations together maybe then, but that becomes a hard sell due to all the lies, half truths and general level of incompetence that has been demonstrated. Not to mention I think it would be political suicide for any politician to be seen siding with Bush(Sadly even if he is right) just based on recent history.

Besides, in light of Iraq, Afganistan and more than likely Iran - what do you suppose the feelings will be of Russia and China should a huge navy fleet of America starts first? I am probably reading too much(or too little?) into this but I would imagine that that alone would do more to destablize the region than just telling China "SOrry, we have our own troubles right now. He is closer to you, he is a threat to you. It is your call on what to do about it seeing as your nation will have to pay the price of refugees and such".

As it stands though I hear China may do something anyway...
China recalls troops after N Korean nuclear test

ANyway, I am off. Thanks for the debate everyone and the thoughts.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What sort of position is he in tho to demand such things?

Umm, President of the United States, leader of the Free World, the most powerful man alive and in charge of the current most powerful nation in the world?
Other than that, hmm, not sure, enlighten us.




Now that they have nukes.. there not going to just stop in the hope of talks..

Umm, two things here:
1) Detonation of an alleged nuke does not mean that one has weapon ready 'nukes.'
2) It is still under scrutiny as to whether North Korea actually detonated a nuke or not.

So "having" remains relative and a non-substantiate factoid.




The only option left is allow them to continue building nukes.. which NO ONE WANTS.. or talk to them directly..
Which im pretty sure EVERYONE will want now.

Talks have been ongoing for how long now either via China to NK, UN to NK, Russia to NK, and China to NK x2, etc. x 2. The US has been behind all those, but as for DIRECT talks, one on one, not going to happen. Them there days are over between the US and NK over this their nuclear program.




Why does the US have to be so stubborn?

Why does North Korea have to be so "stubborn"?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What sort of position is he in tho to demand such things?
Now that they have nukes.. there not going to just stop in the hope of talks..

Why does the US have to be so stubborn?


Bush is the president of the United States, the country that Iran and North Korea wants to talk directly to, that is why he can demand such things.

The US is being stubborn because North Korea is THREATENING the US to talk with them. Nobody likes being threatened.



Ok,
But its been said..
If Korea stood back and said ok ok ok , we wont do anythin bad.. we just want to talk.. do u believe the US would talk?

... Hell with it..
maybe china should unleash her war machine.
I mean as said its there backyard.. its their problem and they are the super power in the region..
Squashing Nkorea for china I would imagine wouldnt be difficult..
It would be a hell of a lot more difficult for hte US and her allies because we are alreayd suffereing extensive issues elsewhere.

China doesnt exactly have the public achillies heal like the US does.
IF your chinese and you dont agree with what the chinese government does.. you'd better be quiet about it... Here in the US the public can be a major issue if u wrong them.

Whats the chances of china militarily hitting korea should talks in the end still demand a one on one with usa?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Diplomacy is always preferred to force by any nation. Unfortunately diplomacy only works when you have two parties that are willing to both make and follow through with an agreement. People here demanding that the US aquiese and talk solely with NK arn't showing any consideration to the fact that we tried that; (in the previous administration) they didn't follow through on their end; and now we have a more serious situation. If we negotiate a settlement what's to stop them from cashing the check and not delivering the goods again, do you do business with someone who's ripped you off before? No talks should take place outside of the 6 party talks. All 5 other countries have an interest in the region. The US China and Russia are all great powers, Japan is a medium power, and SK is a mostly modern nation state smaller than Japan. NK doesn't want to negotiate with the others because they know that they can possibly screw/defy/threaten any of them individually, even one of the great powers; but they cannot make an agreement with all 5 other countries and then break the agreement, without true consequences.

All that being said the US is in a pickle. Were we not tied down millitarily in Iraqistan, and currently being led by folks who've burnt some bridges and made some serious mistakes, I don't think we'd have that big a problem getting a coalition together to solve this issue by whatever means necessary. It looks like China's none to happy, and this if true is probably the best hope to settling this peacefullly if possible and without to much bloodshed if not (relatively).

Theres a quote i read from some roman that went something like "Military expeditions are like fishing with a golden hook". Right now the US has two hooks in the water, unless we make some more we gonna have to reel one in before any we could even think about millitary action. Oh and southwest asia is where the trophy bass are, the ones in north east asia are only known for the tough fight to make the catch.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Seekerof,

But by using that logic the US has threatened everyone for g-d's sake. This Admin has done nothing BUT threaten people/nations and unlike NK has hurt people/nations.

What is wrong with letting China deal with it?

LOL you just got done saying we would be cowards if we waited and let others take care of it now you say this make your mind up.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadMachinist

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Seekerof,

But by using that logic the US has threatened everyone for g-d's sake. This Admin has done nothing BUT threaten people/nations and unlike NK has hurt people/nations.

What is wrong with letting China deal with it?

LOL you just got done saying we would be cowards if we waited and let others take care of it now you say this make your mind up.


Actually what I said was "Preceived as cowards". I would never call anyone a coward for not fighting, unless they were banging to drums for the fighting - which is another way of saying my most recent use of coward. In that those that wish to go to war, should, but it generally turns out those that want war, and those that fight the war are two very distinct groups.

No need for contridiction there. You had me worried though I suddenly felt like Rummy!



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
The man is a liar and does not hold to his agreements.

He has already screwed us in one-on-one talks as I have pointed out, under Clinton.

He has already screwed us in 6-way talks, under Bush.

He never intends to stick to his agreements; he only uses them to buy time.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Do you remember July 5, 2006?



July 5, 2006: North Korea launches seven missiles from its east coast, including

the long-range Taepodong-2.
news.ninemsn.com.au...


How about Feb, 2004:


North Korea is entitled to launch a pre-emptive strike against the US rather

than wait until the American military have finished with Iraq, the North's foreign

ministry told the Guardian yesterday.
:
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next", said the deputy director Ri

Pyong-gap, "but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the

exclusive right of the US."

www.guardian.co.uk...


How about this week?

The North Korean Foreign Ministry said the communist government could respond

to U.S. pressure with "physical" measures.

"If the U.S. keeps pestering us and increases pressure, we will regard it as a

declaration of war and will take a series of physical corresponding measures," the

North's Foreign Ministry said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central

News Agency. The statement, the first formal announcement from the North Korean

government since KCNA reported the Monday test, didn't specify what those measures

could be.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
What would you have them do?

Negotiate?
Sanctions?
Military attack?

They, too, have been screwed by Kim's lies. They even tried a 3-day oil embargo.

Nothing worked.

Sanctions would not hurt Kim, but it would further hurt his staving populace, and

then China would have millions of refugees streaming into their country.

Military attack is playground mentality at this point. It's obvious that many here

do not remember the Cold War. It's what brought the mighty USSR down, for your

information.

China does not want a nuclear arms escalation in this part of the world. Japan can

be nuke-ready in an amazingly short period of time. SK is not far behind.

Do you think anyone wants a nuclear arms race and the resulting tensions in

this part of the world?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Who cares whether that dickhead who rules the roost in North Korea is threatening to launch a nuclear missile or not ? If he does, then he'll be annihilated.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mogget
Who cares whether that dickhead who rules the roost in North Korea is threatening to launch a nuclear missile or not ? If he does, then he'll be annihilated.

That's absolutely true. He has no formal delivery system at this point anyway, so his words are empty.

But the main problem is if he can develop his nuclear program to the point where he can sell to the malcontents of the world.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I have a question. I have read alot of posts on what should be done in retaliation, and a lot of good points have been made. But I think the big question is what does N.K. want? Food, money, weapons? Or does Kim just want to piss off Bush?

[edit on 11-10-2006 by JEREK]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
i guess my question to those who are saying "why cant we just talk to the guy? who are we to refuse to talk to him?"

who is he to refuse to talk at the 6 party talks?

HE is the one that wants to talk...the rest of us could go without it..

HE wants stuff from the rest of the world yet really offers nothing. anything he does pretty much ammounts to a bribe to get him to be a good boy. i mean really, what is in it for anyone else to talk to the guy? wahts he offering?

why is the US the bad guy for saying "hey, we'll talk, buy a ticket to bejing and we'll all sit down like old poker buddies and hash this out as a group"

doesnt it strike ANYONE as odd that he wont agree to the 6 party talks?

seriously, he has nothing to offer so who is he to set the conditions where negotiations will take place?

he screwed us before, he'll screw us again so why should we rush in and talk to him like he's the big kid on the block?

if he wants to grow up and be a big boy and join the worlds community and economy then he needs to act like a good neighbor and do the right thing. the rest of the world is wililng...why isnt he?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Damocles
Nicley said!! I couldn't agree more. If the U.S. were to engauge in one-on-one talks with Kim he would have an excuse to do what ever he wants then just blame the U.S. for failing to come to a compromised agreement and we would look like th bad guys. The world already thinks poorly of us. Why would we give him a reason to blame a major crisis on us. He would have the complete upper hand in one-on-one talks.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by JEREK]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   


but I am curious as to what you beleive the next course of action should be seeker

Send Kim a dozen flowers of his non-choosing and an invitation to 6-party talks while enlightning Kim to the factoid that the US also reserves the right to first strike, as Kim has threatened against us. I would substantiate such by sending an F/A-22 to drop a 5,000lb 'can' of crap on his palace.



Now that sir is an amazing idea. Let's call it the "O' SH*T BOMB". Can you imagine little Kim going to work in the morning with the window rolled down catching a whiff of something funny before he turns the last corner to his palace? When he pulls up to work and steps out his lovely palace is covered in 5,000 lbs of cow crap.


Since some on this board thinks it is OK for him to demand exactly what he wants I say we continue to drop O' SH*T BOMBS on him unitl he complies with 6 party talks! Threatening him with O' SH*T BOMBS can't be as bad as him threating to launch a nuclear missle can it?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
South Korea is playing the Israel card. That's all your seeing.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I don't advocate bombing NK out of spite for their actions and only think that negotiating with other countries to show how serious it is...is the way to go...but, however, it seems that Kim prefers not to do this and I suspect that he's stalling the entire thing as if this is a show.
It's an interesting pattern of behavior..

They would agree to the talks, back out, condemn the US, threaten to test the bomb (which they somewhat did), act defiant, back down from other countries' pressure...and then continue that cycle.

Even though I think the US should just let China, SK and Japan deal with NK because this is a regional issue for them. And if it all comes down to the point where NK won't talk and continue with their weapons testing, then I think a joint military effort to remove manufacturing plants that produces conventional military vehicles and weapons and including nuclear should be considered to avoid any loss of civilian life and away from the main population---unless NK gets the idea and pulls a "Saddam Hussein" using human shields.

If Kim makes another missile threat, the US should close the doors on him and focus on Iran...just to make Amadinejad sweat thinking, "Uh oh..I THOUGHT Kim got them distracted to buy me more time?!".

I think NK is trying to de-program us from countering and stalling the entire thing. It's like a game of "Whack a Mole"..and Kim is that mole...popping in and out of a bunch of holes trying to taunt us. So what do we do? Whack him or ignore him and go on to the next game?
He's being 'encouraged' with his theatrics by the 'shadow' puppeteers.

So here's the interesting thing to note...Why did'nt the Pentagon THINK of using the forces in Afghanistan to hit NK? It would save time and effort without deploying straight from the US (or Area 51). We're literally behind NK's backyard. Take a look at the map and you can see that we're kind of sandwiching Iran in-between.
The only problem is Pakistan or China won't let us go over their 'air space' to get to NK.

Again, there's more to it than meets the eye and Bush has a lot of 'hidden' options there that he may not be aware of on the table. The answers are there but I don't think bombing is one unless we're provoked and unfortunately, this is what Kim is trying to do....and I believe Japan is his target...or Taiwan.

It cannot be SK because radiating Seoul with nukes will make it extremely difficult for a physical invasion...just like the game of RISK, in order to take a country over, you need 'foot' soldiers to make the invasion complete....same thing applies the Axis & Allies. Plus, he's got to deal with the American and SK soldiers on the DMZ.......
And I think it's Japan that is his best bet to get us riled up.
If he succeeds in bombing one of Japan's cities......would you like to know what happens next?

EDIT: I just thought of something.....what if Kim's intentions were to nuke the DMZ? I remember a story a few years ago that someone predicted on the Art Bell show that NK would try to attack the DMZ as 'surprise' maneuver. I think this is why the US forces are on low profile at the moment.


[edit on 11-10-2006 by Sanctum1972]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Actually, I believe we should talk to little Kimmy-boy. Very short, very one-sided conversations consisting of 5 words...."Shove it up your ass!!"

I've had enough of this little brat. You do not discuss issues with someone who has just threatened you. He obviously only understands one thing....FORCE!

Let's go get em!



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The thing to remember is that this is not a rational man we are dealing with. He has isolated himself and NK so much that he actually believes his own megalomaniac dreams.

He's very short, wears platform shoes, drings and drugs to excess, likes western women (blondes), has statues, posters and paintings of himself or his father on practically every surface in NK. Need I go on? He has a severe self-image problem.

If he ever does agree to talks, it will only be to buy time. He'll get aid for his people, which he'll promptly divert to his military, and continue doing what he is doing today.

Do you think this guy will ever submit to nuclear inspections? Never!

He wants to be considered a world leader. He needs to keep showing his military that he's tough, since they are the real power in NK.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I disagree with people who are saying this is a regional problem and we should let China handle it. Yes the imidiate threat is to those countries in close proximity to N.K. but they could sell there technology( if they in fact have it ) to any paying terroist. They are so isolated they could do it undetected. The long term threat is real to the U.S. and should dealt with harsh and swift action.
I apologize if this sounds like a Goerge Bush press conferance.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join