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.

 

The US is overlooking the threat raised by North Korea because George W. Bush has a vendetta to reso

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 01:14 PM
link   
George W. Bush is single handedly bringing about the demise of our country. His economic policy is a disaster, the war against terrorism is falling apart, and we are not paying close enough attention to North Korea because he is too hell bent on beating up the bully who picked on his dad.




posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Actually airborne a technical state of war has existed between Korea and the United States ever since the 38th Parallel was instated. Korea sent a ship to Yemen with weapons on it. That does not mean it presenting a threat to the US. One other way of looking at it is despite the fact Communism is the mainstay amongst the populace of Korea. Its leadership presents a capitalist ethic in relation to the world market.

Very recently we initiated our missile defense system whose initial development will include missiles in the West Coast. The maximum range for Korean missiles threatens those interests.

Airborne 101 what else would you want the US to do in relation to Korea? This issue of our President being obsessed with Iraq is questionable. Yes Saddam Hussein posed a threat to his Father and that may seem, as an excuse to feel that something is wrong.


Consider what George Bush once said (after being elected). He is a person who works for a living and there is someone else in charge (not his exact words but it is the gist of the conversation).


Ultimately someone else is responsible for making the decisions. And by the way according to the Vatican that person is the equivalent to a Pharaoh (in relation to ancient Egyptian ways). Ergo this country is run by a Theocracy, one, which feels that attacking Iraq is a valid and appropriate response (at this time). Airborne as far as the reasons I could tell you (at this point) but if I did I would have to kill as a result. These doses not mean that in the future telling you will not result in your death. The secret will be made apparent in time (but be certain) when it is made apparent History will never be the same.



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Airborne 101
George W. Bush is single handedly bringing about the demise of our country. His economic policy is a disaster, the war against terrorism is falling apart, and we are not paying close enough attention to North Korea because he is too hell bent on beating up the bully who picked on his dad.


The economy was already headed into the toilet before him, the attacks against us made it worse, and the continuous uncertainty of the future has kept us from recovering as we should have.

There is no reason to believe the war on terrorism is falling apart even though the Commander in Chief isn't calling you and keeping you updated on what is going on in places you know nothing about, and because the war wasn't ended in a few weeks as many of the microwave generation people thought it should have been.

As far as North Korea, one problem at a time. The military isn't as it was at the end of the Reagan administration and the American public doesn't have the attention capabilities to follow the two visible fronts of the war, much less three, even if we did have the military to do it.
Besides, could you imagine the howling from the people who think we are trying to take over the world because we are probably going to take out a murderous insano-bastid in Baghdad if we were to move on North Korea?



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Airborne 101
George W. Bush is single handedly bringing about the demise of our country. His economic policy is a disaster, the war against terrorism is falling apart, and we are not paying close enough attention to North Korea because he is too hell bent on beating up the bully who picked on his dad.


Look pal, grow a brain. Stop posting this inane commentary.
The US has been keeping a close watch on North Korea for the last 50 years. Because it isn't front page news, doesn't mean that the US isn't watching, waiting and planning for possible action.



posted on Dec, 21 2002 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Mad Scientist, unfortunately, many peoples speak and think like their tv set. So, if it's NOT told on their tv set....



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 03:28 PM
link   
First of all, yes, I am very fully aware that technically we have been in a state of war with North Korea since the end of the origional conflict. However, recent events on the penninsula should be cause for alarm for everyone!! It is not enough to say that there are people in our govenment watching and they know what is happening. As a citizen of this country, and of the world it is our responsibility to understand and formulate opinions so that our governments can be kept in check. North Korea is the biggest threat to the United States right now, and the only reason that no one chooses to believe that is because that it is not on the front page news everyday!! Doesn't it give any of you pause to know that N. Korea is restarting its nuclear power plants, which could potentiall develope weapons grade plutonium! While their strategic missile capabilities may not be advanced enough to reach Washington or New York, the North has a track record of selling delivery systems to rouge nations. You think that they would think twice about doing the same with weapons grade plutonium, especially if the price was high enough! They can not feed their population, they are despriate for anything that they can get! Now come on everyone....you mean to tell me that you honestly think that George "Dubbya" Bush is paying the attention that he ought to what is happening in North Korea? Iraq is a blip on the map as far as I am concerned. Tighter restrictions and diligent and thourough inspections are key in Iraq! Not military action. Furthermore I am not condoning military action against north Korea, I am simply saying that under the Bush administration our priorities are way out of whack. I challenge anyone to prove to me that Iraq should be ahead of north korea on our list of priorities!



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 04:21 PM
link   
With a nick like Airborne 101, which lends us to believe you are/were a member of that prestigious unit, you would think you would know a little about military strength.

The US has not forgotten about the North Korean problem. Thats why there are 37,000 US troops permanently stationed there. The government HAS been keeping a close eye on them. How else would they have tracked the SCUD missile shipment from the time it left North Korea, until its interception?



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I am very aware of US military strength both in the middle east, as well as along the DMZ. However, that is not the crux of my argument. As I said, I am not condoning the use of military force, I think that war is something that should be avoided at all costs. I am saying that I do not feel that the Administration is doing enough POLITICALLY to deal with the crisis that we are facing. We are being reactionary to North Korea's movements. We need to be proactive and make this a very high profile diplomatic endevor. The UN is for dealing with crises such as this, not for justifying a cowboys war. IN MY OPINION, what "dubbya" needs to do is to call world attention on North Korea. A country that has known capabilities for making weapons grade plutonium should get higer priority than chasing after something that we will never find in Iraq. Do I think that Saddam has Weapons of mass destruction? Yes, but right now we have the luxury of being able to disarm any suspected operation. We are not so fortunate in Korea. Furthermore, south korea isn't exactly going to be playing ball for much longer either.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 04:51 PM
link   
north korea is now removing UN devices in nuclear plants that can produce nukes is the USA gonna hafta fight a war on 2 fronts, actually i think they have a plan stating that they shud be able to maintain warfare in at least 2 threaters



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Rhetoric.
War is to be avoided at all costs. The founding fathers would ask is peace so dear....
How is one to be "proactive" in the diplomatic sector? And, what to do when N. Korea tells us to shove off? As far as telling the world about N. Korea, do you think it doesn't know?

As far as the cowboy war, did you miss the news yesterday of the numerous tons of chemical/biological weapons material that is missing, that the U.N. knew Iraq was suppose to have?

One nation is run by a nutcase that would dearly love to settle a score against the west, the U.S. in particular, and has the connections to terrorist organizations to deliver unconventional weapons material to and help make it happen, the other is not necessarily run by sane people, but is more stable than Hussein.

The world knows the North Korean situation, the U.N. is gravely concerned about their cameras being disabled, and many nations are having "high level" discussions about what to do.

What would you have them do at this point. Diplomacy N. Korea to death?



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Airborne 101
Furthermore, south korea isn't exactly going to be playing ball for much longer either.


Where, praytell, do you get this information??? Is this an opinion, or something else?



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 05:38 PM
link   
"One nation is run by a nutcase that would dearly love to settle a score"

I am so glad that you agree with me about George W. Bush.


I am aware of the missing weapons in Iraq, but I disagree that he is more unstable than North Korea. They are in much more of a desperate situation than Iraq. Yes, Iraq is under sanctions and its people are hungry, but the UN is much more able to help the people of Iraq than North Korea. North Korea is starving to death and it will do anything that it can to insure that its soviernty is assured. Iraq just has to play ball.

The debate about Iraq belongs soley to Bush, he wants to go in for personal reasons. Lets not forget, Bush wasn't exactly top notch when it came to forgien affairs during the election, and he still is far less versed than he should be. I do not feel comfortable with him at the head of our armed forces, whats next.....he is going to send US troops against the manufacturer of the Pretzel that took him down?

As far as your response to my comments about avoiding war...I ask you, do you want war? Have you ever fought in a war? Would you be willing to go to an unpopular front? I ask you just to think about that, because for the purposes of this discussion it is far to easy for you to answer that in the context of this forum.




posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 05:39 PM
link   
AR, apparently you did not read about recent South Korean elections in which a more hardline approach towards relations with the US won.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Have I fought in a war? No. Have I been in the military and have I ever been shot at by an enemy? More bullets than I can count. You have no need to know anymore, and it holds no importance to the discussion. You are only trying to inject emotion. But since you asked, how many wars, or how many firefights in undeclared wars or other military aggressive encounters have you been involved?

Do I want war? That is another escape and evasion tactic, and a stupid one at that. What sane human being wants war? While I doubt there's a chance in Hell they'll bring me out of the showbox of old, broke down toys, I have dear friends and family that I have no desire to see killed or injured.

I seriously doubt that you would've answered the geography questions asked of Bush, and you know darned-well Gore wouldn't have, either. Obviously, you don't see an ambush when it is right in your vision. I surely hope you aren't a member of the armed forces if the trip wire that obvious is missed.

Because you fail to see the threat with Iraq doesn't mean that it is not there, and it doesn't mean it is the cowboy's war. Just because the rest of the world isn't as worried about our security as our president is doesn't mean the threat isn't real. Your opinions on why Bush wants to go in are just that - opinions. They are founded by suspicions and your anti-Bush bias, nothing more. Your opinions fly in the face of the threat and of Hussein's actions. Your pretzel comment highlights your lack of understanding of the threat to the safety of the people of the U.S.

North Korea has been receiving aide for the dire straits it has been in, and the reason for the aide is not so much humanitarian as it is political. Such "in your face" moves North Korea is pulling now is not making it easy for aide to be directed its way, and violating agreements aren't making the world have the warm-fuzzies about its intentions. Had you been paying attention you'd realize that Hussein has been thumbing his nose at the world in the same manner ever since the first war was ended, and after 1998 has had unsupervised, unmonitored time to hone his B-C capabilities while pursuing the nuclear.

Interesting how people will say '43's reason for attacking Hussein is Hussein's attempted assasination of '41, yet ignore a very huge reason Hussein might want to see the suffering of the U.S. other than our western ideals and support of Israel.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Airborne 101
AR, apparently you did not read about recent South Korean elections in which a more hardline approach towards relations with the US won.


That hardly qualifies as proof that Korea is preparing to discontinue cooperation with the US and the UN! Our troops are still there at their request, and continue to work side by side with the ROK troops. Joint excercises and support continue. That is hardly a lack of cooperation.

Now, other than your opinion that the new ROK government might be less cooperative, do you have any real proof that your original statement is true?



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Airborne the only thing that North Korea has done is sell some Scuds to Yemen. As far as their Nuclear weapons program do you really believe they ever stopped working on it? And as far as those cameras are concerned there is no law on this planet that obligates them to keep them running.

Non of this is grounds to mount a military campaign against North Korea. If perhaps the ship, which contained those scuds, had tried to get to Iraq then your point would have some validity to it.

The president of this country called North Korea a part of the axis of evil and they feel threatened (would you blame them). What would you do if you were the leader of that country? Especially after one of your ships was seized in international waters?

In relation to the political/legal definitions related to International law do you understand who is the injured party?

It possible that President Bush and those who work for him and with him. Considered North Korea as a part of the "axis of evil" because it does import weapons, which can be used to destroy cities, as well technical state of war does exist between our two countries. By making clear to North Korea that the US considers her a threat to world peace. Makes very clear what would happen if that country were discovered selling weapons to the other countries mentioned.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec
Airborne the only thing that North Korea has done is sell some Scuds to Yemen. As far as their Nuclear weapons program do you really believe they ever stopped working on it? And as far as those cameras are concerned there is no law on this planet that obligates them to keep them running.


Whoa, wait a minute, you're holding a double standard here. On one side you are all about attacking Iraq because of it's "disregard" for the UN, and now you are trying to say that it's okay for the DPRK to deactivate UN safeguards and reactivate programs that were mothballed by treaty?


Originally posted by Toltec
Non of this is grounds to mount a military campaign against North Korea. If perhaps the ship, which contained those scuds, had tried to get to Iraq then your point would have some validity to it.


Would it have? As long as they had a range of less than 120 miles (I believe that is how the treaty stands) they can have them. There were no biological or chemical agents being shipped. The ship has nothing to do with this conflict.



Originally posted by Toltec
The president of this country called North Korea a part of the axis of evil and they feel threatened (would you blame them). What would you do if you were the leader of that country? Especially after one of your ships was seized in international waters?


The ship was seized for true legal reasons. It was an unmarked ship in international waters, which, when interdicted, and when it does not respond to contact requests, or two warning shots, gives all right to be boarded. Sure DPRK can feel threatened, and they should, with 37,000 US regulars within striking distance and more troops in Japan. There is probably just as many troops in the area as there is in the Middle East.



Originally posted by Toltec
In relation to the political/legal definitions related to International law do you understand who is the injured party?


The Right of Visit, explains why the ship was boarded (look at sub-paragraph d)

Article 110
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.


However, you are correct in the liability issue, but since it was a legal siezure, then there is no issue:


Article 106
Liability for seizure without adequate grounds
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.


Taken from: www.globelaw.com...


Originally posted by Toltec
It possible that President Bush and those who work for him and with him. Considered North Korea as a part of the "axis of evil" because it does import weapons, which can be used to destroy cities, as well technical state of war does exist between our two countries. By making clear to North Korea that the US considers her a threat to world peace. Makes very clear what would happen if that country were discovered selling weapons to the other countries mentioned.


The DPRK does not recessarily import weapons. They make them themselves. The fact that within months of restarting their nuclear program they can have enough material to make a nuclear weapon, and a track record of selling such technology, obviously does not worry the Americans as much as a guy who MAY have such weapons in a few years and MIGHT be responsible for training some people in the use of weapons. Every country has a right to it's own sovereignty. The United States is there to monitor the armistice, and is not at war with the North at this time.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Rhetoric.
War is to be avoided at all costs.



Well, for the first time ( I think it's the first time
), I don't agree with you TC.

War is not the right solution, everybody know that. But war don't have to be avoided at all costs.

Otherwise, if North-Korea or China ( or another annemy ) tell you : " Surround or do war ", you'll surround ! I can't be agree !


Loving peace is a good thing. But loving peace at all costs is a suicidal behaviour.


I don't subscribe to the point of view : "It's better to be Red than dead ". Sometimes, unfortunately, we have to fight when it's necessary. And if your ennemy don't leave you the choice.........And you know, I know the price of our freedom. Also, I know that I'm ready to pay the bill if I have to do it.
That's why I'm allways ready to do peace, but NOT att all costs.



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 06:00 AM
link   
No, U-P, we are in agreement.

The post was in response to 101's post.

The first word was "rhetoric", in other words, just a bunch of familiar phrases that mean nothing, such as "war must be avoided at all costs." Patrick Henry asked in his famous speech this question: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery! Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"



posted on Dec, 23 2002 @ 09:16 AM
link   
All that I am saying is that if we continue to ignore the very serious threat posed by North Korea so that we can chase after a crazy arab in the desert, we are going to be far worse off than we are today.

The one thing that has been neglected in all of this however is the state of the economy. Does anyone really think that dubbya is doing a good job with this? I challenge anyone to prove otherwise (the nod looks to you Affirmative)




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join