|ignoring North Korea||MJ|
Feb 27, 2003 9:08 AM
|anyone else worried more about NK than Iraq? can you imagine the reaction if Saddam (undoubtedly more stable than Kim Il Jong) fired up a nuke reactor? why isn't this (long standing) threat bumping Iraq off the map/out of the headlines and out of the sights?
|Because it is being handled diplomatically||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 27, 2003 9:31 AM
|If North Korea was such a threat we would be hearing a lot more requests from Japan & South Korea for an increased presence there.
Bush is working this diplomatically. Much like he is trying to do at the moment with Saddam, who is still refusing to disarm.
Korea is weak economically and this is a bluff to try to get economic help.
|Because it is being handled diplomatically||MJ|
Feb 27, 2003 9:54 AM
|where have you been? it seems to me the whole region is reacting to this threat:
SK worried re NK
Australia fearful of NK
Pacific arms race
Japan will strike first
clearly they're requesting
NK is refusing to disarm and has stated that any build up in US military will be trigger for war
if you consider Bush's tactics "diplomatic" with Iraq you have a skewed version of diplomacy - it's like a mugger asking you to give them all your money or he'll shoot you - that's not diplomacy is it?
Iraq is weak economically too
are you willfuly misconstruing the problem/threat or were you previously unaware
|so MJ is saying, War in Korea OK!!! War in Iraq No Way???||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 27, 2003 11:22 AM
|Do you even read the links you are posting? Japan said they will only act in self defense in your post, not strike first. Do you get a kick back from the Guardian for each link you post? You seem to like to post their links.
And how do you know what I knew? I guess I do not remember Carter Going to Noth Korea several years ago when they tried to start up their nuclear program. And I had no idea and agreeing to stop their nuclear porogram in exchange for fuel oil shipments among other things. I suppose Bush knows nothing about that bluff in 1994 either.
If you are right, we should just nuke them off the planet. Did you know PETA said that they eat dogs there? We just need to wait for the Dan Rather softball interview with Kim Jong-il before we go in.
North Korea is far from stable. THey are weak. Of course Japan sees them as a threat and they are going to complain about missle tests. We would do the same if Cuba did that. But Japan is not asking us to send a battle group to protect them. Kim Jong-il is bluffing now, just like he did in 1994.
I think I am more aware of the situation than you. You are proposing war in North Korea in an effort to distract people fromk the situation in Iraq. If that is what you are learning from the Guardian, I suggest you seek other sources.
History can often repeat itself. This situation will be handled with diplomacy like it was 8 years ago.
|so MJ is saying, War in Korea OK!!! War in Iraq No Way???||MJ|
Feb 28, 2003 1:50 AM
|if you want me to use links from other sources I can - do you dispute the factual info.? anyways - look at the first link
why do you think Japan, not a well known military power, is saying it'll strike first - because they're scared, like everyone else in the region - your first post clearly indicated you either were ignorant of that fact or were choosing to ignore it
Carter was in 1994 - all acknowledge these are different circumstances - nobody's visiting - US won't even enter into talks with NK - everybody else is concerned about this, white house included according to the NY Times and the other posters on this thread but I'm glad you feel you have everything under control
dog tastes good
stable - politicall and militarily they are stable indeed weak? nukes and a 1.6m man army is not weak however you cut it
NK has stated if US sends any additional military it's a trigger for war - we can't send a battle group (it's like you didn't read anything above)
your knowledge on display not only indicates you don't have a clue about NK but about reading comprehension - if you want to question facts - let's see what you're relying on
don't think I ever proposed war - (again reading comprehension needs to be worked on) just queried whether anybody else is worried about this...
historians agree history never repeats itself
|Try reading the propaganda you are posting||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 28, 2003 7:54 AM
|MJ, you are posting news stories and editorials, but you are either not reading them, or not understanding them. You are asking where I am getting some of the facts, I can easily pull them from the articles you posted. Here is a quote from your New York Times Article.
"The start up of the reactor does not pose an immediate threat; it would be a year before it produced enough waste for a bomb."
We obviously have a window in which diplomacy can work here. Russia and Chuna are both calling for calmness here and urged the US not to over react to the launchings and they are not.
THen the Guardian, which uses a sensational headline "Japan says it would strike first" to try to make Japan look like war mongers. But in the fifth paragraph mentions that Japan will only strike in self defense.
One of your other Guardian articles also quotes Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi: "We agreed that even if the North takes a provocative attitude, we should deal with it calmly and carefully" Hardly a strike first mentality as you are implying. Japan may not be the military power they were during WW2, but they have an very efficient technologicaly advanced military.
THe Australian article apears to be an editorial on why Australia should support the US led actions. It also makes a mention of Austraila joining the US led Missle Defense program and briefly mentions that a North Korean missle could reach some of their cities, but does not imply any panic.
I did not suggest we send a battle group to North Korea. I just got the impression that it is what you want since from all indications from your posts that imply they are such a threat.
You saying that Korea is stable shows your lack of knowledge on the situation. North Korea is a not a stable nation by any means. They are a military dictatorship more concerned with supporting and building up their military than they are about feeding their people. THey are economically weak which is why they are trying get something by flexing their military muscle. Their people are starving due to factors such as flooding, but more from the direction of their resources to the military regime that keeps them opressed.
They are a disruptive force in the Pacific Rim. Sure they are a threat to peace in the world, but they are not talking about sending scuicide bombers to the US. They have not invaded South Korea trying to claim it back as their own .
MJ what are you proposing if not military action? Or do you even know what you are proposing? I think it is just trying to distract people from the Iraq Situation. I am proposing diplomacy, which is what the US is doing at the moment. Sure the US is playing a harder line than was done in 1994, but that is because Kim Jong-il is trying to plai the same bluff twice. THey are also trying to get China & Russia to put more political pressure on North Korea.
Maybe you should try posting what you think the solution should be for once instead posting a bunch of Guardian articles.
|Try reading the propaganda you are posting||MJ|
Feb 28, 2003 10:13 AM
|you'll find the same articles here:
US reckons NK has at leats two operational nukes
they are a threat - more of a threat than Iraq is my point -to reiterate they are stable politically and militarily - of course they are starving - but they are not unstable - you can't find one source that disagrees with that statement
NK may not send suicide bombers but would certainly sell WMD's to terror groups who would - BTW Iraq never attacked the US with suicide bombers
don't have a proposal - BBC article indicates (as I did) that this time the stakes are much different than 1993-1994 mostly due to hawkish US stance and inability to engage in effective diplomacy
I don't have a solution - not sure if there is one - what I do know is that this problem can't be ignored - Iraq isn't a threat - NK is
after you read through the same articles from NY Times and BBC maybe we can revisit this - in the meantime you can't dismiss the query because of the source of info. particularly when corroborated by other sources
|The problem is not being ignored||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 28, 2003 1:03 PM
|I do not need to read through a bunch of articles from a NY Times or BBC search to know what is going on in the world. Besides, there are better sources for news than either of those. I also read newspapers every day. I also did not dismiss you sources, I went to the trouble quoted you sources in my response.
Did you know Powell was in China, South Korea, & Japan this week. We are hardly ignoring the problem. It is being worked on. THe UN is sending represenatives to North Korea next month. Is that what you consider ignoring the North Korea Situation? Maybe they want North Korea to give a gesture of good faith before the US has direct talks rhater than just give out hand-outs.
They also want the rest of the region to get more involved, mainly China & Russia. If that happens, evbery time Kim Jong-il has a hissy fit, we will not need to handle it. Changes in our relations with Russia & China are the biggest differences. Our relations are better there then they were in 1994, and we are asking them to get involved.
There also is something called Multi Tasking. It is one where you can work on different tasks while doing your job. For instance, while I am at work, I may be adjusting an insurance claim, writing a memo to my boss or one of many other functions in between phone calls. Our government is able to handle that as well.
Sure there is a lot of attention on Iraq at the moment. Does that mean we are ignoring everthing else going on in the world? Of course not. I am sure we are keeping an eye on Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan and many other trouble spots. And the current US Stand is hardly "hawkish" since there is no threat of Military Action.
I also disagree completely on a nation being stable because they have a big military and nukes. Was the USSR stable before they colapsed? They had a big military & nukes. But eventually they colapsed. THeir people eventually got tired of going to empty food stores and it led to their fall. The same held true in East Germany. It will not take much more in North Korea for the people to turn against an oppressive goverment. That is why he is stuggling to keep them fed. He sees the threat himself. You cannot completely dismiss the economy of a country and say other than that, they are stable.
THe NK situation will work itself out with time. Diplomacy is in the works. My guess is the solution will eventually involve some economic assistance in exchange for turning off the nuclear program in addition to some economic reforms to plant seeds of capitalism & human rights reforms. Just giving them oil shipments in 1994 without any economic reforms was a mistake. It just made it easier for him to opress his people.
As for Iraq, I am tired of repeating that point to you. Go back and read my previous posts. And they have al ready given weapons and funding to Hamas, who are threatening to send suicide bombers to the US. That is all old news.
Your contention that the situation is being ignored is wrong. Your contention that North Korea is a stable nation is wrong. You need try something other than sending a web search of BBC, Guardian or Times articles.
|Nope, it's being spun.||czardonic|
Feb 28, 2003 1:29 PM
|North Korea celebrated Colin Powell's visit to the region by test firing a missle and re-starting a nuclear reactor. If there were a Democrat in the White House you Bush apologists would be apoplectic with rage over the equivocation and appeasment that North Korea is enjoying.|
|Sure is being spun!!||Alpedhuez55|
Feb 28, 2003 3:12 PM
|Kim Jong-il is playing a good game of chess here. I think the US just playing a harder line and trying to make sure that any resolution involves more countries. I think the situation will be resloved within a few months though. And if the US just agrees to resume the oil shipments it stopped last fall without and human rights and economic reforms, I will be the first one here first people b*tching about Powell & Bush doing a poor job in the situation.
|The problem is not being ignored||MJ|
Mar 3, 2003 1:16 AM
|good to know you've got the market cornered on reliable info. from (unlisted) sources - most people don't question the NY Times/BBC as a legitimate news source
as Czardonic pointed out - Powell's trip resulted in
1. no discussions with NK
2. the start up of a nuke reactor and
3. a missile test firing
how exactly are things under control? how is that effective diplomacy?
how is Cuba a 'trouble spot' unless you're an elderly American female cyclist?
the USSR was stable militarily despite a lack of food stores - at issue here is the wounded animal factor which makes the whole thing even more dangerous - if they see their only option as military and that still works (cause they're still being fed) and is stable what do you think is going to happen? NK has been poor, starving and isloated for decades - never, not once, has NK stability been questioned internally or externally - a brainwashed population is starving rather than overthrowing the dictator like in a Rambo movie
because you say it doesn't make it true - please provide a source on Iraq funding terrorists
are you in insurance? what kind? what's your job?
Mar 3, 2003 9:05 AM
|I quoted your souces in my replies, and information that should be common knowledge to anyone who reads a newspapers such as the Boston GLobe or Herald. I do not think I need to put a foot note on every statement. I am also tired of repeating my posts to you.
Sure I agreed with Czar that NK is spinning Powell's visit, though the Inauguration of Moo-hyunm as South Korea's new President, was the event he was really spinning. THat is how Kim Jong-il operates.
And at least Czar makes a point in his posts. You are obviosly do not think the goverment is doing things right but are not able to offer any solutions. I think trying to get China & Russia involved is the right thing to do.
And you are so good at searching Guardian & NY Times sites for links, I am sure you can find a threads I made a month or two ago on this site's archives with links to articles showing where Iraq funds Hamas & other groups. You may also find more information on what I do for a living. I don't feel like I need to respond to that since it has nothing to do with this posting.
Mar 3, 2003 10:25 AM
|your sources are better - mine are crap and I am mistaken on all points - thanks for that - next time I'll be sure to use only the Herald and Boston Globe
the point? I've been pretty clear about that throughout - NK, an apparently far more dangerous member of the 'axis', is being ignored as a threat while everyone is ramping up about Iraq - it's irresponsible
not my job to come up with a solution - or can you only hold legitimate opinions when you can propose something? - how about I just simply propose that NK should be dealt with by those fearing WMD's from the 'axis' and leave it at that - China and Russia aren't up to it and have had no influence on NK so far - because they're not up to it NK is in a more dangerous position than 1993 - the current US approach to diplomacy is to refuse to speak directly with NK - that cowboy attitude is neither a safe or a diplomatic way to resolve matters is it?
there's not been any source which has linked Iraq to funding terrorists that remains credible - you can do your own search on this site (thanks though) - because you say it doesn't make it true - to make that conclusion is at odds with all other available material
amazingly you dismiss what is a very middle of the road opinion - shared by people on the left and right - NK is a problem that should be dealt with and, based upon middle of the road sources, it's not being dealt with effectvely by US/UK/anti-Iraq crowd
no you don't have to source every common knowledge point - but you do when everything you conclude is at odds with all the available sources
you don't "need to" respond to anything - but I'll remember only to include things that directly deal with what's been previously raised in the thread so as not to upset your latent autistic streak
Mar 3, 2003 1:04 PM
|When someone is in a debate and questions the source, it is usually because it is a weak argument. Considering the NY Times owns the Boston Globe, and both newspapers (as well as most in the country) run stories from the AP Wire Services, I would say they are both simular sources.
Besides, I was not questioning your sources. I quoted your sources since they seemingly contradicted your own statements. I am questioning your ability to understand the sources which you were reading. At least Czar made a point for you.
|Whew! Good to hear! I was worried. nm||OldEdScott|
Feb 27, 2003 10:06 AM
|200,000 troop-buildup diplomacy||eurochien|
Feb 27, 2003 10:41 AM
|You call itching to go to war with Iraq with almost a quarter million troop buildup diplomatic??? I'd hate to see what you call war. Meanwhile oil-less North Korea is firing missiles, restarting nuclear (not "new-kyu-lar") programs that could very well lead to weapon-making capabilities and the current US administration is not doing jack about it. The irony's not lost on many.|
|No irony||Captain Morgan|
Feb 27, 2003 10:50 AM
|Is NK a bigger threat? Absolutely.
Could we go in and take out their regime? Absolutely not. China would not stand for it.
Additionally, a war with Iraq will not cause much damage to any bordering countries (okay, maybe a Scud missile gets lucky and takes out a home or something). Regarding NK, SK would suffer tremendous damage, so we therefore have to be sensitive to that.
Where do you get the idea "the current US administration is not doing jack about it."??? Furthermore, what would you like the administration to do that they aren't doing already? The world does not need questions -- it needs answers.
|Plenty of irony||eurochien|
Feb 27, 2003 11:04 AM
|I get the idea that the current US administration is not doing jack about North Korea because North Korea is building nuclear facilities, firing missiles and basically testing the US and their neighbors and the US is playing it down when this situation is a lot more worrisome than Saddam Hussein. How about that grandiose plan of Bush's to go into Iraq and run it for them. Yeah, that's gonna work out great. Just go in and occupy a whole country, take over, prop up some despot and run it like a business. The whole region is going to see how great this model is for them and adopt it immediately. Saudi Arabia, Koweit, Yemen, Qatar, all those dictatorships, allies of the US, will realize the errors of their ways and turn to democracy thanks to W's bright international policies. Meanwhile Bin Ladin is laughing his ass off.|
|He's doing a <i>great</i> job of running <i>this</i> country.||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 11:51 AM
|I'm sure he will do a bang-up job of uniting the various hostile factions of the Iraqi populace and getting their economy back on track.|
|Actually, yes he is -nm||Captain Morgan|
Feb 27, 2003 12:27 PM
|So, who is the new Iraqi president going to declare war on. . .||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 12:48 PM
|. . .when his domstic policy begins to flounder? Let's hope it isn't us!|
|Clinton's domestic policy||Captain Morgan|
Feb 27, 2003 1:00 PM
|You cannot pin the domestic problems on Bush, because many of the problems were inherited from Clinton. We had some great economic times under Clinton, but that bubble was bursting before Dubya even took office. I remember Jay Leno's joke after the election, where Gore and Bush would come out with new Calvin Klein fragrances: Depression (Gore) and Recession (Bush).
It is impossible to tell whether we would have been better off with Gore. His attack on the "big bad drug companies" might have stymied research, increased benefits to the elderly and poor might have resulted in a lack of tax breaks or even tax increases, which might have been disastrous on the economy right when it was entering a recession.
If there is a SPECIFIC domestic item, please specify so the board could discuss rationally.
|So much for personal responsibility!||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 1:33 PM
|As president, Bush is 100% responsible for domestic conditions. Even if the problems are not of his creation, finding solutions is. Otherwise, what good is he?
Specific items? Bush's tax cut proposal is a bust. It has been so thouroughly discredited that the Bush is resorting to falsified endorsements to sell it: http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-e3142018feb23.story
|Tax cut proposal||Captain Morgan|
Feb 27, 2003 1:46 PM
|I bet that if he had no proposal, the liberals would criticize him for not doing anything about the economy. Again, its catch-22.
I wouldn't go so far as saying he is intentionally falsifying reports to sell it. Ari mentioned it, and perhaps he just made a gaffe. Who knows. Gore said he invented the internet, but I don't think he actually meant it (although I would use it as material in debating liberals, just as you are doing with the statement above).
It is fact that tax cuts can provide short-term stimulus to the economy. Furthermore, we are one of the only countries that taxes dividends twice. I personally think it might have been more effective if we would have allowed corporations to deduct dividends, but regardless of how it is finally approved it is normal by world standards.
|More dodging of responsibility.||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 2:13 PM
|Catch-22? That's rich. I guess no one can blame him for lining his crony's pockets and plunging the country into more debt on a mere faith in trickle-down dogma. Those damn implacable liberals would have criticized him no matter what he did!
Bush made a false statement, and here you are once again making excuses for it. Either he didn't understand the report and made a false statement based on his ignorance, or he did understand the report and lied. Your pick, I can accept either one. Neither exonerates Bush.
Speaking of lies, Gore never said that he invented the internet. Are you unaware of this fact and repeating a myth out of ignorance, or are you intentionally propogating this distortion? What Gore did say was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." He was reffering to his legislative sponsorship of the research that led to the internet's creation. Is he correct? Here is what Vint Cerf (someone who can legitimately claim to have had a hand in the "invention" of the internet) had to say, "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator." I'm glad you'll allow that Gore didn't mean it. But before you go using it to skewer liberals, realize that he didn't say it either.
How many failed tax cut stimulus plans will it take for you to admit that it is not a fact that tax cuts automatically provide short term stimulus?
|Learn economic theory||Captain Morgan|
Feb 27, 2003 2:39 PM
|I don't mean to sound pretentious, but now we are getting into a subject area whereby I have several graduate degrees and make a living.
Under Keynesian theory, the proper governmental response to an economic downturn is expansionary fiscal policy. This is done by increasing governmental purchases, cutting taxes (permanent), or both. Therefore, your comment that "it is not a fact that tax cuts automatically provide short term stimulus" is theoretically incorrect.
|Learn the definition of "theory".||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 2:55 PM
|You don't sound pretentious, but you sound awfully doctrinaire.
As someone educated on economic theory, you must know that Bush's claims are specious, at best. He is cherry-picking tax cuts that will pay off for him politically, and selling them based on the notion that any tax cut is a good tax cut. I don't think his plan will work, and there are a fair few Nobel Prize winning economists who agree with me.
Feb 27, 2003 6:07 PM
|The tax cut most definitely will be stimulative. The question is not whether it will be stimulative; the question is whether it is necessary.
P.S. Nobel economists took down Long Term Capital and threw the world financial system into crisis.
|If Nobel economists can't get it right 100% of the time. . .||czardonic|
Feb 27, 2003 6:49 PM
|. . .your blanket assertions sure sound silly.
No offense, I am sure that your opinions are well founded in economic theory.