North Korea Admits to Having Nuclear Weapons 2056
steelvadi writes "North Korea has now admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. Government officials there claimed that they are needed as defense from an increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. It was also stated that N. Korea will not be reentering negotiations on disarmament for the foreseeable future. "
Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Well then.. (Score:2, Insightful)
As I understand it WMD:s are only a threat if the dictator doesn't admit to having them!
Israel (Score:1, Insightful)
perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?
then we can move on to sanctions and UN inspections
consequence of us foreign policy (Score:5, Insightful)
At Least Two Options (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Insightful)
While your statement is true overall, I don't think it is true in the context of nuclear weapons. Everyone already knows that North Korea has more than a few nuclear warheads. In this case, by announcing that he has them, Kim Jong Il is playing a deadly game of chicken.
Oops... (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess we invaded the wrong country... maybe we should elect presidents with a better grasp of geography. Or reality.
politics section (Score:2, Insightful)
Then I thought 'why on earth is this category themed with the US flag - are politics of interest to usa citizens?'
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It's all jokes but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> What's even more frightening is that they're not willing to talk about it.
What's really frightening is that we have an Administration that couldn't invade Iraq fast enough, all the while pretending that North Korea would just go away if we ignored it hard enough.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same thing with Iran. I'm hoping they get nukes within a few years.
Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course).
I've been saying this for a long time. Despite what the neocons would have you believe having nukes is a great way to make a country get its act together. In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.
On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return.
The same with Iran.
To those who say that countries like North Korea and Iran having nukes is a bad thing because they could sell/give the info to terrorists, think again. In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.
On another point, take a look at India and Pakistan. They've had seven major wars since the two countries gained independence from Great Britain. However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.
I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
The end does not always justify the means?
Not surprised (Score:1, Insightful)
Our government has acted like a bully for a long time, especially recently. We can only push so many people around before they start pushing back.
You get what you give.
~D
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:1, Insightful)
Ummm, except that they were in violation of UN sanctions, and had been in violation for over a decade. Even the UN does not dispute this. The only dispute was whether it was the right time to attack, or should further diplomacy be had.
If Iraq had not been in violation of UN sanctions, the coalition would not have been willing to mount the war.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
But did they start making the nuclear weapons only after Washington started turning hostile?
You don't believe Washington turned hostile in 2001, do you?
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:3, Insightful)
The States has proven with their pre-emptive attack that if you don't have WMDs, you are a threat.
It's such messed up logic. I can see why every single country that poses a threat to the U.S. will try to arm themselves now.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. We invaded Iraq over North Korea because we knew we could kick Saddam's ass. If we had invaded North Korea, Kim Jong Il would have responded by lobbing a few nuclear warheads into Tokyo and/or Seoul.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
What else they can do? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the solution is playing pretend: "OF COURSE I HAVE THEM AND I'M READY TO USE THEM ON YOU"
Jataimi in Iran is doing the same. What pretends C.Rice saying "we are not invading Iran
sad sad world.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know where Iraq got by not having any serious weapons, by allowing inspectors in, and generally doing what the west told them. That's right, they got illegally invaded and the place turned to chaos.
If by "another North Korea" you mean a country prepared to stand up to outrageous american threats then we could do with a few more North Koreas.
Re: Checklist (Score:5, Insightful)
Lesse...
North Korea:
Dictator: Check
Oppressed people: Check
No legitimate elections: Check
WMDs: Check
Threatening to the West: Check
Send in the troops! What's that? We're going to use diplomacy instead? We're going to try to avoid tens of thousands of deaths and injured? Wow, good thinking. Too bad about that other country...
You neglected the all-important:
Has major portion of world's oil supply: nope.
Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT (Score:2, Insightful)
However, now this whole SNAFU is a convenient excuse to ignore UN resolutions, but again, they usually got ignored anyway.
Re:Israel (Score:2, Insightful)
perhaps they could do the same and admit they have also illegally aqquired WMD too ?
then we can move on to sanctions and UN inspections"
No, it doesn't quite work like that. Whether you agree with it or not, we don't do that to our allies.... notice that france and england both have nuclear weapons also. (and i just found out today, belgium does too)
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:1, Insightful)
duuhhhh...
And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this particular whack job (Kin Jong Il) wants the sort of respectful, diplomatic (by comparison) treatment Iran is getting, rather than the sabre rattling it gets now. Let's face it, if South Korea weren't completely held hostage and likely to lose 10^6 people in a week should a real war break out, North Korea would have already have been invaded.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not too eager to put put too much stock into what 'everyone' in the world community 'knows'.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"
We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program? Wow, by your logic that sure is a LONG list of countries that need invading ASAP. And STILL completely ignores the countries that now have or are very close to REAL WMD, not phantoms painted on an oil-rich country.
And do you know why those countries accelerated (pun?) their efforts? They realized that America does NOT go after countries that have the Bomb. They also realize that America can't open a new war front. We're too tied down in a country that posed NO immediate threat to us, so the guys with the real nuke programs get to pursue them at will. We're currently toothless, and they know it.
Anyway, laugh it up, all the dead soldiers appreciate it.
Irony - you should look it up sometime.
Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Note to any far-right-wingers reading this (by any odd chance): Please, PLEASE don't start a war with the North Koreans. Kim Jong Il is crazy. Please, PLEASE don't threaten a crazy man.
Sad thing is, he's right when he claims that they need the weapons as a defense against the US. Our current President thinks he's a cowboy, and treats every encounter with a nation that doesn't agree with us as a showdown in front of the OK Corral. He thinks he's the guy wearing the badge and they're the evil felon in all black... Well, it ain't that simple. North Korea might be evil, but the US is evil too. Just less evil (arguably) and evil in different ways.
North Korea doesn't, for instance, operate a huge network of sweatshops all around the world to supply its uncaring citizens with cheap clothing. It doesn't sell its citizens massively fattening foods and mindless TV that attempts to turn the whole country into a giant farm of happy, mindless, fat cash cows for a few select billionaires to milk dry. The US (specifically, its businesses, with the tacit approval-- or at least complete lack of viable disapproval-- of its government) does those things, however.
American businesses are just slightly less corrupt than North Korean politicians. And have a whole boatload more power over the world at large.
The US vs. North Korea is not white vs. black. It's gray vs. slightly darker gray.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's Truman's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, only one group of people 'knew' that Saddam had WMD's. And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House. Remember, Colin Powell had to testify before the UN on the 'proof' of the WMD's, and the UN still didn't buy into the 'proof'.
In the case of North Korea, I imagine if, last year, you asked any Intelligence Agency in the world about North Korea and nukes, you would have received a positive response.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.
Softly, softly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
it depends, you don't know his priorities.
For all I know he is more interested in grabbing all the oil he can from irak, using the weapons of mass destruction as a pretext
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
well, outside of America, everyone knew Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. the inspectors didn't find a single thing.
if you were surprised that troops didn't find any WMDs then you were watching the wrong news channel before the war.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hussein's Iraq was in no position to do anything but dream of becoming another North Korea. As the complete failure of the search for WMDs shows, the sanctions worked perfectly adequately to keep them from developing nukes.
Meanwhile, the invasion demonstrated to the world that the U.S. will not be restrained by law, ethics, or common sense; so if we don't like your nation, the only way you might be secure against U.S. invasion is to develop WMDs.
Re:Same song, different day (Score:2, Insightful)
Nukes a sketchy deterrent (Score:4, Insightful)
Rogue states always believed that a mixture of diplomatic stalling (cf. Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlements) and, most importantly, the relatively high cost of ground invasion and the reluctance to do so in a post-Vietnam world, is what protected them.
I also don't believe that posession of a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to any U.S. military action, either, since these states seldom have the means to produce more than a handful of low-yield weapons and lack the ability to deliver them outside their own theater.
They're not defensive weapons unless they can be delivered against their adversary's homeland. You don't nuke your own country as a defensive measure against invading forces. Well you can, but that's like chopping off your leg..
Furthermore these states (with the possible exception of North Korea) are rational actors and realize that the use of any nuclear weapon against the United States or its allies would result in a nucleare retaliation that would end their governments and quite possibly close the book on their nations.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
And please, before anyone replies to this with some pacifist BS just one suggestion: learn something about this country. I've talked to people who visited North Korea, I've even met a North Korean back in the eighties. I've read their own propaganda materials. This is an unforgettable experience, it is almost impossible not to feel compassion for those poor people who had the terrible misfortune to be born in this hell. Civilized world should do something about it if it is to be worthy that term.
Oh yeah, blame Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Turns out that after agreeing to everything and getting their huge bribes (errr, international aid) they still went ahead and built the nukes.
You know there's supposed to be something used besides a carrot to make a carrot work.
Right now, the ONLY way to break the dead-lock with North Korea is to get China involved. China is the single largest supplier of aid to North Korea. If they agree to clamp down then something can be done, otherwise we're just sending more bribe money to a liar and a cheat.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:1, Insightful)
Can someone point me to the article they actually published on their Press Agency web site [kcna.co.jp] ?
I don't see such an announcement, at least not dated from today.
Here's the only announcement which contains the word "nuclear"
So, I just wonder whether it's not in the news because CNN of Fox put it there : Iraq and Tunamis just stopped selling.
They need a new fresher war to sell more pictures.
Capitalism, think "nukes for sale". (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that what you meant?
I can see how some people might find that "annoy[ing]".
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Ok, so... According to you, the UN didn't find anything in Irak, NOT because they weren't there despite the US's best efforts to find them after they marched in claiming to have 100% PROOF that they did, BUT because the UN inspectors were inept? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you say when USSR and USA had nukes pointed at each other able to destroy each other multiple times over within 20 minutes was not stupid?
The best that you can say is that countries with nukes haven't done any thing stupid, YET.
>In the case of North Korea they are protecting themselves from attack since any country that would attack them knows what to expect.
Yes, and thats what causes an arm race. You hit me, I'll hit you harder. How is this a good thing?
>However, as soon as India had their nuclear tests and Pakistan followed close behind, both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another.
The last major war was in 1971. Its only recently that nukes got involved.
>I know it's an unpopular opinion but a country like North Korea or Iran having nukes is a good thing. It forces all sides to not be stupid.
Having nukes does not suddenly embude the political leaders with intellence bonus, this is not the game Civilization. Now their mistakes are that much larger. How is this not stupid?
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument was that the United States will say that "They have weapons of Mass Destruction" when they don't, and then attack. But if they DO have weapons of mass destruction that argument won't be said simply because the United State wouldn't want to risk an attack with a country that has nukes.
Then again, I could be wrong. I wouldn't put it pass the U.S. to attack anyway.
But it's interesting that you bring up the part about the countries being run by BAD PEOPLE. Now I won't argue that the dictator of N.Korea is an asshole or not, I personally think that he is. But I will argue that the BAD PEOPLE defense is very relative. You can find a lot of people in the Mid East who think the exact same thing about the United States, and also believe that the United States is out to "GET" them, and to ruin there way of life.
It's that very thinking that causes terrorisim. "The United States is out to _get us_, so we have to go bomb them to stop them."
Also alot of this is a results of the United States protecting it's oil intrests in the middle east. Such as giving Iraq military intelligence in it's fight against Iran. So good guy Saddam Hussien could find out when those evil Iranians were going to attack and from where. You can see why Iran might have a grudge with the U.S. over stuff like that.
Now I don't want to say that I'm right and that they are wrong, I do want to say that there is a lot more to this then just your president pointing to a country on a map, and saying there evil, and everyone just believes it, and attacks. There is so much more, and that type of action and thinking just creates more problems, and continues to increase the risk of terrorisim in the U.S. instead of decreasing it.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen: "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. . . . I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
Jacques Chirac: "we have to find and destroy them [Iraq's weapons of mass destruction]."
Hans Blix: Iraq possesses 650 kilograms of "bacterial growth media," enough "to produce . . . 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax."
Al Gore: "[Saddam Hussein has] stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bill Clinton describing "[Iraq's] offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.": "...Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'.
We shouldn't worry that Bush commands them?
Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.
Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.
North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.
It's not that its "New" (Score:3, Insightful)
The BIG question isn't the intentions of N. Korea but what the US will do.
The Sad part is, living in the US i don't even know what we will do. Isn't it great when the foreign policy of a nation is scretive to its own people that government is supposed to serve and protect?
I certainly hope it won't be war, i certainly hope our government can get back to civil politics and i hope that we learn from the past so we aren't doomed to repeat it.
Re:Reality distortion field? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq may have been in non compliance with inspection requirements, but thats not to say that the UK/US invasion was legitimate or legal. There was a reason this wasnt a UN led operation, the lack of convincing evidence presented to the UN security council. Those who voted against military action in the security council based on the evidence presented were ultimately proved right - so far theres been nothing of any substance discovered.
Hans Blix is also quoted as saying Iraq did not possess the weapons or materials that the US and the UK said they did - but I see most people overlook this little matter. Face it, Iraqs invasion was Bushes way of tying up loose ends rather than anything legitimate and good. The arguement that 'Saddam was a bad man' doesnt hold up. Yes, its good hes gone, yes, he was evil. Unfortunately, when you dispose of governments in that way, you face a very real risk of becoming that which you are dealing with.
I'm so ronery (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so ronery
So ronery
So ronery and sadry arone
There's no one
Just me onry
Sitting on my rittle throne
I work very hard and make up great prans
But nobody ristens, no one understands
Seems that no one takes me serirousry
And so I'm ronery
A little ronery
Poor rittre me
There's nobody
I can rerate to
Feer rike a bird in a cage
It's kinda sihry
But not rearry
Because it's fihring my body with rage
I work rearry hard and I'm physicarry fit
But nobody here seems to rearize that
When I rure the world maybe they'rr notice me
But untir then I'rr just be ronery
Rittre ronery, poor rittre me
I'm so ronery
I'm so ronery
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Acctually.. (Score:1, Insightful)
North Korea use to just suck if you lived there. Now it sucks if you're within 9,000 miles of it. Yay, Bush. Why didn't God magic that ok?
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be more sorry about Guam, American Samoa, Japan and South Korea personally. (among others)
Re:What else they can do? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, if I was running Iran, I'd be concentrating completely on making nuclear weapons and WMD right now. And I am sure that they are - you never admit to making them obviously, only to having them when you finally do! Chemical WMD to attack troops that invade, nuclear weapons to destroy cities in nearby countries that are allied with the west. Possibly Saudi Arabia, dunno if they'd reach Japan but they might.
The USA had it easy in Iraq because, well, you invaded a country that didn't have WMD or nuclear weapons, so troop losses have been minimal. All that has done is convince a lot of other countries that capitulating to "don't make WMD or nuclear weapons" demands is a recipe for getting invaded. So future invasions will most likely end up with tens of thousands of *invading* troops killed - losses I don't think the American public could accept.
Re: It's all jokes but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
> If you really think Iraq was invaded for "weapons of mass destruction" or "oil" you are brain dead.
Well, I don't think it was for WMD; I think that was just a deceptive excuse that the Warcriminal in Chief thought he could get away with.
As for oil... yes, that was a major reason. The '91 war left Iraq isolated and restricted on selling its oil output, with no resolution in sight. The Bush Administration found that situation unsatisfactory, and used the first possible excuse to do something about it.
> Iraq was simply a front in 'war on terror' or the christian/secularist vs radical islamic war.
Yeah, right. The only Islamicist terrorist organization in Iraq was thriving under our protection in the northern no-fly zone.
> The war was brought to Bagdad so it wouldn't be fought in Boise.
Funny, people used to justify fighting in Vietnam so we wouldn't have to fight commies in California.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello, TESTING??? (Score:2, Insightful)
AMERICA'S IMPERIALIST AMBITIONS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
The arrangement worked out by Clinton, using Carter as the go-between, was to build light water reactors in exchange for the DPRK doing away with their heavy water reactors. It was a good deal.
Light water reactors (the kind the Russians are building in Iran, BTW) use fuel that is much, much harder to enrich into weapons-grade material, and they are easier for inspectors to monitor.
In short, the Clinton deal engaged North Korea and would have worked to stop or slow their weapons programs. Bush stopped the Clinton deal's funding and changed to a hard-line approach, and now we see ourselves in the present situation.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
you understand why an Iraq-style attack on them is out of the question, right?
Because we'd actually have to justify it to the American people and explain to them why the sacrifice was required? Make no mistake: Either the United States or South Korea could defeat the North in a military confrontation. The price (tens of thousands of troops, the likely destruction of Seoul, possible strikes against Japan) is just too high to be paid.
As scary as that SOB (Kim Jong il) is I'm more worried about Iran in the grand scheme of things. North Korea at least (by and large) still behaves as a nation-state. Kim Jong knows that if he attacks Seoul, Tokyo or Honolulu we can turn Pyongyang into a glass parking lot. He might rattle his saber but that's as far as it's likely to go. The same limitation might not exist in the minds of Islamic Jihadists who think that martyring themselves against the "Great Satan" gives them everlasting life and 30 virgins.
We can only hope and pray that the reformist movement in Iran is the real deal. I don't want to see Tel Aviv or Washington nuked anytime soon.
Re:consequence of us foreign policy... NOT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: It's all jokes but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember thinking that myself. Funny no one ever stood up and said we screwed up in Viet Nam. Just like no one can just come out and say we screwed up in Iraq. For some reason we have to collectively go on kidding ourselves that there was some grand purpose, some lofty goal. It was a screw up, plain and simple, and everyone knows it except for 52% of the population. You can't ever make progress denying reality (but apparently you can get re-elected). The truth really will set you free but continuing to live a lie costs 4 billion a month.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:consequence of us foreign policy (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't. Any non-nuclear nation on the face of the earth is protected only by not being important to us, or by sympathy of nations we care about.
Since WWII the U.S. has engaged overt military interventions or in major covert operations in nations including Cuba, Guatemala, Panama, Iran, Grenada, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Libya, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and, oh yeah, we're still involved in the Korean war (there's been a long cease fire but the war is still in effect).
The historical lesson is clear: we want you, your ass is ours. Unless you've got nukes.
Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree with you. I believe the reason North Korea wasn't invaded (and will not be invaded by the US) is simply summarized with one word, "China".
The best way to deal with Kim and his nukes is through China. Sure they don't particularly want to get involved but he's their puppet nutbar and not ours. The only sane path to checking this guy and his new toys is to put the pressure on China. Reign in that little freak or we're going to find ourselves another country to make pretty much everything we use. There are plenty of candidates out there.
Economic power is the way to go here. It's not as cool and flashy as military power but then it's also not nearly so expensive in lives. We won't do it though. No way will we do it.
Geopolitics for dummies on Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, here's mine. It hasn't been brought up yet, so let's see if anyone considers it insightful...
The Chinese are not our enemies in this issue. They actually fear a totally destabilized N. Korea as well. That they came to the rescue in the Korean War belies a much more complicated truth about the relationship between Koreans and Chinese. China, on the verge of becoming the 2nd superpower economically, is really not all tha keen on seeing Kim Il Jong do things like test fire intermediate range missiles into the Sea of Japan. They know that quite a few U.S. boomers are riding the coast of Korea, and will have Trident IIs arriving on target in minutes if we think a nuke had been actually launched, at either the West Coast (which we know they cannot yet reach) or Japan. And they know that the Chinese would not respond.
The worst case scenario really is, that NK's increasing starving and helpless population is thrust under some stupid pretext into an attack on S. Korea and a nuclear weapon is moved to the front and detonated and then denied. Again, I think the U.S. would go nuclear if that happened.
Prosperity of S. Korea combined with an internal assassination campaign is probably Washington's strategy. It's best to fight this one using spies and satellites, a conventional invasion would be pointless and unlike Iraq, we don't want to assert control over the region.
What??? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's absolute bullshit. We NEVER ignored North Korea. North Korea was second only to Iraq in terms of rogue nations we were concerned with. Not even Iran ranked that high until now. Have you ever actually LISTENED to Bush's speeches on national security? Hello Axis of Evil!
And this begs the question, what would you have the President do about NK? Hmmm? Diplomacy? We've been doing that intensley. Sanctions? They're starving already, and I doubt you would have supported that option anyway. Invasion? I KNOW you wouldn't have supported that. So other than just criticizing Bush, what would you have had him do? Throw money at North Korea? We've BEEN doing that for over a decade. Hell, Clinton GAVE them reactor technology if they'd promise pretty please not to use it for military applications. Unhhh huhhhh. THAT was bright, eh?
So do you actually have any solutions to the NK problem? Or are you just going to bash Bush for it?
Re:Retaliation!? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about this:
Bush in his State of the Union address said that it was the goal of the US to promote freedom thoughout the world, for all people everywhere.
Meanwhile, he appointed one of the masterminds of the American human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib as the chief law enforcement officer in the US.
It sure doesn't sound like he's very sincere.
Ob Doomsday clock reference (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
You celebrate this as victory for diplomacy.
Now North Korea is back blackmailing again, and people like you are gonna just keep bending over for them.
The US doesn't own everything (Score:2, Insightful)
So can you blame them for hanging on to some weapons? Either the whole world disarms at once (creating well... peace) or nobody's going to do it... especially with a president who lies to his entire country to further his personal agenda.
N. Korea is its own country governed by its own laws and operating its own military. Until it uses these weapons against another country, we can't say a thing.
We all know the power of nukes- nobody will blindly send a nuke unless the US is dumb enough to go in there- oh crap- we're screwed!
-M
Re:Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm going ape on this one. I'm going ape because each time I think of NK I imagine the life of those poor bastards who were born there and when I do this I almost cry.
You write about "massively fattening foods"? Do you have any idea what it means to compare that vide selection of cheap food available to everyone in the US with the situation of a North Korean with his 8 ounces of food rations? Would you say it in the face of a person who knows what hunger is how bad "massively fattening foods" are? You don't have any imagination? Any decency? Any measure? Any compassion? Are you so blinded by your ideology?
You write about "mindless TV"? How about a totally censored TV, with songs worshiping the Great Leader? How about spending hours and hours training to become part of a gymnastic parade during which you are a pixel in an image of the Beloved Great Leader?
When I see comments like yours I know where the opinion comes from that Americans are generally ignorant and stupid. I just can't believe that such a piece of BS can be described as "Insightful". Really, people, you should learn some about the world. It seems that ages of freedom made it impossible for you to even imagine life in the hell North Korea is. Good for you, but really, think, think! If you still can!
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you that many people outside the US--and many liberals in the US--thought that Saddam had aspirations of WMDs and probably had a few stashes of weapons with rather limited destructive potential. I thought that myself. What I disagree with is the conclusion that was drawn from that information by the Bush administration: that Saddam's aspirations and small amount of weapons made him so dangerous to the US and other countries that we needed to go to war to stop him. I never believed that. And I believe my perception of the situation was vindicated after the war. Saddam's weapons programs were in shambles and his "stockpiles" of weapons were puny to non-existant. Clinton and Chirac may have recognized that Saddam COULD be a danger, left unchecked, but neither of them thought he was so dangerous as to undertake a war because of it. He was contained. His power and danger was very limited. They recognized this. Bush and company didn't.
This, obviously, doesn't speak to the humanitarian aspect of the war. Yes, the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam in power. But do you want the US to be the world police? Do you want the US to right every wrong in the world (or are we even capable)? I don't want that. Clinton had this tendency, as well, and I didn't like it one bit. There will always be injustice in the world, but the US can't be held responsible for all of it. How about letting an international body figure out when intervention is needed and deploy international troops in that case (UN anyone?). Why not work with the UN to get more EU or Chinese troops in the UN peacekeeping forces? Why not try to better the UN to make sure it answers humanitarian crises in a timely and efficient manner? It would be better than taking the responsibility (and risks, international PR problems, etc.) on our shoulders alone. Bush combined his cowboy "go it alone" attitude with Clinton's "world police" tendencies and ended up painting us into a international relations corner. Not a great strategy, if you ask me.
Further, on the point of the "Oil for food" program, you should really look up the US's involvement in the program from it's start shortly after the first Iraq war. The US helped set up the program and benefitted from the program for years before it was determined that it wasn't in our best interests. Sure, at the time of the second Iraq war we weren't involved in the program any longer, but many out there like to paint the picture that the US's hands were clean. I don't buy it. Backdoor dealings for power/money are the norm in US politics. Why would you assume those principles wouldn't apply to our international dealings as well? We were involved in the program and my guess is that we benefited from it.
Taft
Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:2, Insightful)
China is the reason North Korea existed in the 50s and the reason they exist now.
Shame most people on Slashdot are too stupid and childish to admit that.
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. Clinton and the IAEA negotiated to place cameras in the reactor. To behonest, it was a fair arrangement. The imminent change in policy after George Bush took office, and his lack of PERSONAL policy detail (being in front of dealing with other nations as a personal engagement; palm pressing; making them feel they were a part of the process) immediately made the already paranoid NK government renege.
Thier feeling was now they were no longer dealing with an American administration that believed in exhausting diplomacy and would allow the NK's to save face (by exchanging the ability to give up weapons for aid and a security guarantee), but one that if pushed, strike.
NK almost seems to belong on another planet in how it's citizens behave; from all accounts it's closed society is in a different world. I remember seeing a documentary recently where the power went out in a family's home and then blinked back on, only to hear "Damned Americans", like we had something to do with it.
The regime maintains power through fear and the projection of military strength while the basic necessites for citizens are ignored. Without external aid, this might be the one legitimate regime that may decide "you know, fuck it. Let's take someone else with us."
So they felt that by holding the region "hostage" by becoming a nuclear power, they can: One, guarantee thier own hold on power as the US and UN would dare not invade lest Seoul or Tokyo get turned into one big sheet of glass and two, demand food and supply aid to feed and maintain control of its' population.
To us, now we're damned if we do aid them, because we're caving in and damned if we don't, because I've got a feeling the Asian nuclear proliferation problem may get a lot worse. Japan has made minor rumblings about getting a deterrent, and they can have a bomb at any time within six months of starting a program.
Clinton mulled a cruise and air missle strike to take away NK's ability to make weapons, and opted for the placement of cameras in the hope that a diplomatic response coupled with aid would work. Plus, he knew hitting NK could result in seoul being behind enemy lines in 48 hours in the event of a war.
Bush has fanned flames, and then with tunnel vision
zeroed in on Iraq since his election, while NK might, just might, pose the biggest threat to democracy and stability in a number of the worlds critical economies: China, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, India, Australia to name the big ones. Ignoring this, and possibly fighting the wrong war could seriously come back to haunt us.
Coupled with the perception in the world that to get any respect from Washington you have to have weapons, what can we expect? Which is why Iran isn't CLOSE to thinking about giving up thiers, knowing they're that close.
What's that old adage about catching more flies?
Re:You're not entitled to your own "facts" (Score:2, Insightful)
name one (Score:3, Insightful)
the influence of that nation, at the moment, is bigger than that of NK...
Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally, South Korea doesn't have to worry about being nuked from North Korea, based simply on what ol' Kimmy-boy wants.
Unlike the power-monger US, South Korea doesn't actually want to invade North Korea. They want to reunify Korea peacefully. Fortunately for all involved the US hasn't butted in more than to make idle (and empty) threats.
The US will not invade North Korea because North Korea could inflict massive casualties on the US and/or US allies in the blink of an eye. The blatant hypocrisy is also apparent when you look at US treatment of China.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
The other factor that makes the situation opaque is that Kim Jong Il is pretty close to insane - like comic book character insane, so you can't do the usual reverse engineering of geopolitical strategy to get an idea of what his game is.
While I think we've made a big mess in the Middle East bigger in most places and smaller in a few, I believe you are indeed correct - this is not really about Iraq at all. As an aside, I do think we can improve our batting average in the Middle East if we're a) willing to be a little more circumspect and pay more attention to attitudes on the ground than Bush has been so far, and b) willing to really commit aid money, technical assistance and troops over the time scale of decades, not years. A lot of these world hotspots had their development woes magnified by being proxy states in the US-Soviet conflict and then being utterly abandoned. Undoing these kind of festering problems takes a long, long time.
It's a global chessboard..ain't politics grand?
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:3, Insightful)
So now what do we do? Stand back and wait for the next "Great Patriotic War" when they get a huge stockpile built, or cut our losses and fight now?
Maybe they wouldn't be so scared if we didn't invade Afganistan. Then Iraq. Iran looks next. Hmm... don't you think they have a right to worry about being invaded?
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last several years the US has showed the rest of the world that it can easily invade any country that it pleases based on fake premises, even if that decision is not aproved by the UN security counsil (if you do not remember, Bush told them before invading Iraq that he really doesn't give a shit about what they think).
Now, I am not in support of dictatorships like the one led by Saddam Husein or Kim Jong, but lets be honest about this: no WMDs were found in Iraq. The entire premise of the war which was sold to the citizens of this country and to the rest of the world was completely incorrect. Did Bush at any time apologize to the citizens of this country or to the rest of the world about this? Did he say, I am sorry, we made a mistake? I do not remember, and if he had, I sure would remember it.
What is the alternative of a hostile regime such as North Korea in this current position? Of course they have to develop WMDs right now, they need them right now, because they do not have the military power to withstand an invasion of the US. N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).
My 3c.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree, but unfortunately, invading North Korea is an intractible problem. Even if The People's Democratic Bullshit Dictatorship of North Korea doesn't have nukes, it still has plenty of WMDs of other kinds and plenty of conventional weapons. During the opening hours of an invasion, hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery and missiles would rain down on Seoul and kill millions of civilians. This is why it's intractible. And if NK does have The Bomb, the invasion force would also be nuked.
The only feasible way to approach it would be if the US opened with a heavy barrage of neutron bombs to kill most of the 700,000 NK soldiers that line the border, but AFAIK the neturon bomb was discontinued and the usual pacifists would get all worked up in a lather about it anyway.
Re:Utter Hypocrisy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on your version of innocent. If having nuclear weapons makes a state inherently evil, then that'd make USA, France, UK and Russia all evil. I think perhaps that being told not to develop nukes by a nation loaded with nukes is a little hypocritical. Sure, the stakes just got higher, we're really gonna have to learn to play nicely now. And that means everyone.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
My brain hurts. (Score:3, Insightful)
We let the guy who DOES have them and lets his people starve to death sit around in his palace while we throw money and food at them.
I like how this works.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reality distortion field? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it also might have to do with some VERY high up people in the UN, France and others making tons of illegal money off the "Oil for Food" fiasco...Saddam was paying them off, and they didn't want the gravy train to end, nor have it revealed what they were doing...
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
And WTF does Iran have to do with Jihadists? From I've read and seen (on the news), Iran is slowly becoming more moderate. There's a younger generation that grew up after the islamic revolution (or whatever it was called). A lot of them want the country to open up to the west. President Khatami [wikipedia.org] is a reformist and has often clashed with the hard-line islamists that run the government. The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil". George W. would make a terrible diplomat...
On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the USA. Its citizens are taught that the US started the Korean war by attacking them, even though there's documents showing that the north started it by attacked the south. There's a monument where visitors go to weep over the fallen "heros" of the Korean war. Every evening the government-controlled TV shows a military parade. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-US, anti-west sentiment just waiting to go off.
No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone is sort of missing the point. Their missile tech probably isn't good enough to hit the continental United States 'but' is sufficient to damage the American Economy. What about a well placed nuke in Japan? What about Taiwan and destroying most of the world' s chip fabrication capacity? Or Hong Kong? Or South Korea?
A direct hit upon the United States is not required to damage the United States attacking its interests are 'sufficient'. By those measures - Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (as a global financial centre, etc.) certainly qualify.
There is a reason why South Korea is attempting to MOVE thier Capital. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ. If NK marches south... Seoul can be leveled before the war even really starts.
Traditional discussions of territoriality are less important in an (and I hate to use this cliche) increasingly globalized world.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reality distortion field? (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for them! (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus it's about time we stop being hypocritical. We have nukes for the same reasons.
Re:Korea (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously folks, if that was the case, wouldn't you expect the OIL prices to go DOWN?
NOt until the country was stable again, anyway, and at least partially rebuilt. Since neither of those things have yet happened, it's too early to use this sort of 'fact' to dismiss Bush's motivation.
Here's a real question. How much oil could we get from Iraq when they were under UN sanctions? Iirc, France got most of the oil that came out of the OIl for Food program Saddam abused. How could we get the UN to lift the sanctions on Iraq (so we could buy oil from them)? One of two ways:
1. If Saddam were a compliant dictator, he wouldn't be a dictator. So lifting the sanctions peacefully while Saddam was in there was unlikely.
2. Invade them and replace their government. No matter how angry the UN got at us, they'd still have to realize they can't visit the sins of Saddam's regime on the new government, no matter how bad we fuck it up. So the sanctions will be removed (or rather, rendered obsolete), and, Bush's Words, he'll have "secured American interests in the country".
Forget Nukes, DPRK Has No Right To Exist (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer: no.
The DPRK is a brutish, thuggish, criminal (in the literal sense) despotic regime. A tiny elite minority of sycophants surrounding Kim tyrannize and starve millions of Koreans.
No such regime has any political, moral or ethical right to exist.
The deliberately ignorant naivete of those who argue that the DPRK is threatened by the U.S., using the war the north launched more than 50 years ago and refuses to settle as an excuse, is toadyism in exterme form.
If organizations like the UN, ASEAN, etc., are so dead set on helping people, why haven't they done anything to get rid of these people? All they do is beg aid money from the West to feed and support the victims of these criminals. But, without eliminating the victimizers, this aid is reminiscent of medieval Europeans dancing and singing to stop the plagque, while the rats feasted on their waste in the streets.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The US doesn't own everything (Score:3, Insightful)
The man is an amoral lunatic, and he's got The Bomb. Abusive dictatorships are a blight on this planet, and nuclear weapons let them get entrenched.
Now, people keep saying this, that, and the next about Clinton's reactor deal: "Bill Chamberlain gave N.K. teh bomb!" "Noes! They were stopping teh Chinese for giving them teh biggar bomb!" - does anyone have any actual _facts_ on the subject?
Where was this quote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people seem to have gotten the whole burden of proof thing ass-end-to. It was Iraq's responsibility to live up to the agreements it made when the cease-fire was negotiated. Iraq singularly failed in that matter and despite numerous warnings, second, third, and fourth chances they continued to play cat and mouse over it.
Sometimes the mouse gets eaten.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because China is manipulating that "sore on its border" to do its dirty work in the region while it keeps its hands clean as a "modern, capitalist, open China".
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:1, Insightful)
I disagree with both points.
Saddam had to go, and we had the means to remove him, so we did.
Kim Jong Il also has to go, but we need to consider the interests of Japan, South Korea, and our other allies in the region when dealing with them... Not to mention the People's Republic of China. A country that shoots down our surveillance planes just to remind us who's boss in the region could not be expected to react well if we moved a couple carrier fleets to their coastline and invaded a border state which is on freindly terms with them.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
WhoTF said that it is ok for the USA to have nukes but not ok for Iraq, NK or else? And WhoTF asked the USA to enforce this?
No one? Then whyTF do the USA dare to act like they had anything to say to anyone outside their own borders?
Re:Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean you Americans can hardly gush about non-proliferation when you have enough nukes to turn the entire world to glass several hundred times over. And dont try and tell me that you are any more responsible and the world is much safer with them in your hands... to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people.
Nuclear weapons are a problem the entire of humanity faces not just the Asian area.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:5, Insightful)
The country is slowly changing and it would help if GWB and his posse don't make any more stupid remarks about it being in "the axis of evil".
Yes it is slowly changing and if you had actually read what I wrote you would have noticed my last line hoping for it to continue to change for the better. But it's also useful to note when things go the other way -- such as when the Revolutionary Council kicked all of the moderate legislator's off the ballots in the elections a few years ago. Iran could go either way and it's foolish to ignore this possibility.
On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader.
I'm not disputing any of what you said about North Korea. But Kim Jong il (like Saddam for that matter) isn't motivated by fanatical religious beliefs. Everything he has done is about staying in power. He doesn't get to stay in power if he nukes Seoul (or Toyko or Honolulu for that matter). Why do you think they were willing to give up the weapons in exchange for a non-aggression pact? Engagement is the correct answer to North Korea -- not saber rattling.
No sir, North Korea is the country I'm worried about.
When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead.
Re:Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
Only if you assume competence in the ability to lead, plan and meet goals.
I'm not willing to assume that with the characters at hand...
If you assume that the players are stunningly incompetent, you end up with exactly what we have today.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Should he? Try looking at it from Bush's point of view. France and Russia both voted against the US war in Iraq because they had a sweet oil for food scam going on with Sadaam (especially the french).
Russia voted against the US despite warning the US that Sadaam was planning to attack the united states [cnn.com]. If you believe the premises were false, then what do you think Bush's motivation was?
Now, I am not in support of dictatorships like the one led by Saddam Husein or Kim Jong,
That is good to hear.
but lets be honest about this: no WMDs were found in Iraq. The entire premise of the war which was sold to the citizens of this country and to the rest of the world was completely incorrect.
Do you think Sadaam didn't have them? Seriously, he did in the 80's (we gave them to him). The question is...where did they go? I'm sure he didn't use them all on the Kurds and the Iranians.
Did Bush at any time apologize to the citizens of this country or to the rest of the world about this? Did he say, I am sorry, we made a mistake? I do not remember, and if he had, I sure would remember it.
What is he going to say? "Oh hey sorry, we didn't find the WMD's". My bad. Iraq was in violation of the UN agreement, the UN didn't act because the UN is corrupt, so Bush *DID* act in the best interest of the American people.
What is the alternative of a hostile regime such as North Korea in this current position? Of course they have to develop WMDs right now, they need them right now, because they do not have the military power to withstand an invasion of the US.
They would have developed them regardless of our policy in the middle east. They were developing them before the axis of evil comment. North Korea has plenty of reasons to develop nuclear weapons that have *NOTHING* to do with President Bush or what the US is doing in the middle east. To try to blame it on Bush is simply misguided.
N. Korea's WMDs will make Washington think twice before confronting them directly (relax, even if this happens, this would be at least 10 years down the road... US forces are too ocupied and spread out for a second direct offensive).
The US wasn't going to invade North Korea WMD or no WMD.
Fallacy Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Missiles that the DPRK currently has can travel nearly 7,000 miles, which puts more than 1/3 of the USA within their range - think Boulder CO and Cheyenne Mountain, and not just Hawaii.
The DPRK also has submarines sold to them by our friends the Russians - they aren't nuke powered
but they are quiet. The best-guess scenario would be that the DPRK delivers a few nukes by submarine to the USA's west coast, or smuggles them across the nearly wide-open borders. Hand-delivered nukes can be shielded much better against
radioactive emmissions than any missile-borne WMD, which would thwart the USA's highlysecretive NEST teams. Without the tell-tale trace of a ballistic launch, which would pinpiont the country of origin, the USA would have a hard time determining whether a nuclear explosion onUS soil was a result of hostile action by Al-Queda, the DPRK, or any other member of the nuclear "club" (or some combination thereof).
"Dubya's" entire "justification" for a preemptive
war in Iraq is nonsense, since even Dr. Rice admitted before cameras (check out the M.Moore
Fahrenheit 9-11 DVD) that Saddam did not have WMD capabilities, well before initiating war. But what this war has done is to draw down USA defense forces in the homeland, leaving our borders and seaports insecure, and our nation's financial
health at risk. The DPRK does not have oil - if they did, "Dubya" would have gone there first. OTOH, the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) does have oil and is trying to become a member of the nuclear club. But they also have a population of 75 million, which could make a USA invasion very risky (as opposed to Iraq's population of 25 million). Of the three members of "Dubya's Axis of Evil", Iraq posed as the weakest and most tempting target - beaten in one war, strangled by UN sanctions, AND with nearly 1/2 of all known oil reserves. The Bush team did the math, figured the odds, and THEN tried to build the justification for war with Iraq.
The Bush administration has been counting on pressure from the PRC on the DPRK to halt their nuclear program. 80 percent of all foreign aid
flowing into the DPRK comes from the Chinese, not the RoK or the West. Let's just call that a big bad judgement call, because the DPRK is a client state of (and proxy for) the PRC. The PRC's rapid industrialization has made it the fastest growing importer of oil, which they recognized as an economic weakness for a long time. That is why they have been so deeply involved in the Middle East for as long as they have - both as an ally to these OPEC countries and as a "spoiler" to the West. Before Gulf War (I), it was Chinese "silkworm" missiles that threatened oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, deployed along the IRI coastline. And the PRC was the "hidden hand" behind the DPRK's nuclear and missile trade with Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan that brought Pakistan into the nuclear club.
You don't really thing that it was just a mistake
that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC
embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking"
it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?
The DPRK presents the biggest threat to its regional neighbors, as it has been for 25 years.
Japan would do well to become a member of the
nuclear club, and quickly, as a counter to both
the DPRK's and the PRC's ambitions of regional hegenomy. They might have to re-write their
constitution to do so, but so be it.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you want to bomb them to submission, they will destroy South Korea and Japan first. Acceptable?
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, then, here's one: the US only imports 18% of its oil from the middle east. The remainder is imported from Canada, South America, an Russia. Why? Simple, it takes almost as much oil to transport it from the middle east as you can bring over. The real reason gas prices are so high is because of investors taking advantage of the gullible in a speculative market. "The rubes don't know we don't get our oil from Iraq, we can gouge all we want!"
Speeking of sheep (Score:5, Insightful)
1)WMDs *were* an excuse, I think by now everyone (not being a sheep) can agree on that.
2)The oil, aside from geopolitical reasons, has always been an important consideration; to claim differently is naive (at best). If the war in Iraq had gone the way the USA government had forseen it, oil would have spiced the USA economy already. And more then it ever could with the sanctions in place, as another poster already explained.
3)Yes, Saddam commited terrible crimes to his own people, however, this was never mentionned as the prime cause for going to war. In fact, international law does not allow to invade a sovereign country because it has a dictator commiting crimes. Besides, the USA has held (and helped) dictators in power that commited terrible acts against the populace, as long as the dictator was cooperative. The argument that they invaded Iraq for that reason (as only is argumented now, afterwards) would be more convincing if the USA didn't show they were perfectly prepared to help dicators, as long as it suited them.
3)There was a majority? Must have misread about pretty much all of the world-opinion, then. That US politicians were in support says more about the majority of them (linked with sheep) then anything else. But then, a pretty much biased media and the developed national-zealot-reflex of pretty much all americans goes a long way in explaining it.
4)"There is a difference between a threat to the country and a threat to human life. North Korea doesn't pose a direct threat to the US..." Indeed. Neither was Iraq a threat to the USA. And while you claim there is no mass-murder (how would you know that?) also in N.Korea people are being tortured and killed; so where does that leave you, with your justified reason to go to war? And btw, if anything, since N.Korea has nukes AND rockets, it poses a far greater threat to the USA then Iraq ever did. And they aren't predicatable at all, which has been proven by the numeous times they reacted on the 6-countries talk. Predicatble and knowing his intentions...geez. You are completely inventing this, aren't you?
Simple break down on diplomacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq has oil, therefore we invest in invading and occupying.
North Korea does not, therefore we save money by pursuing diplomacy.
I don't understand how any of those goddamn Right-wing nut-jobs out there can possibly not see how much bullshit there is in the Bush Administration's policy. We go after the non-threat while the threat is sitting there bragging at us all the while about how they are actively developing WMD.
I am so sick of these stupid fuckers making big mistakes for which we will all have to pay dearly.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Korea (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you realize how mean people are just plain starving, but for some reason no-one gives a shit about them either
Nearly 30 million Africans could be facing famine within months.
Estimates from UN agencies, African governments and relief charities put the number at risk in the Horn of Africa at about 15 million, over 14 million in southern Africa and hundreds of thousands in the Sahel region of West Africa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2449527.s
yeah freedom terrorists WMD liberty woooh !!
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.
They are busy starving, and not menacing us.
They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.
They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.
Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.
The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even close. You would have to have a very limited knowledge of history to come to that conclusion. Every heard of Pol Pot? That's a example from recent history. There are hundreds of other examples if you look back thousands of years.
I'm still amazed people buy into the "we had bad intelligence" argument regarding WMDs. Heck, Karl Rove even admitted that the WMD angle was just the most sellable excuse rather than the real reason. The plan for invading Iraq was developed in the late nineties. When the folks who developed the plan came into power in 2000, the invasion of Iraq became inevitable. It would have occurred had their been no 9/11. It would have occurred even if the WMD claims were discredited in advance. The "we need to save the people of Iraq from this evil dictator" excuse was not mentioned until it became clear that there were no WMDs.
For the record, I'm fine with the idea that some people feel that it's the responsibility of the US to save people from evil dictators even though I don't think we should. But, I'm surprised when act as though the "we must save the people of Iraq" was the original intention.
I also don't agree with you on North Korea. They scare the hell out of me. I just don't understand your position. It was important to invade Iraq (which was not a threat to the US and had essentially no viable army and no WMDs) simply to save it's people from their leader, but we need not worry about a sophisticated, first-world nation with a massive army and nuclear weapons?
Now, their dictator is completely nutz, but very predictable. US intel knows that.
Where did you get that idea? Do you have inside sources? Since when are crazy people predictable? You want to blame US intelligence blunders for the WMD fiasco re: Iraq, but then turn around and say we should trust US intelligence re: N. Korea?
Saddam is an evil man. But, Iraq was never a threat to the US or it's allies. North Korea is a threat to the US and our allies. I, for one, don't believe it's the responsibility of the US to save nations from their leaders. I don't believe in nation building. I do believe in protecting the nation from real threats. North Korea is a real threat.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the CIA said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Face it. Accept it. Bush lied.
Re:Korea (Score:5, Insightful)
That was Pakistan. Huge scandal, physicist sold nuke tech around the world, got pardoned last year?
We don't seem to be invading Pakistan. Where bin Laden is. Which sold the weapons tech.
Curious.
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:2, Insightful)
This statement is idiotic. North Korea had nothing to fear until they developed nukes. Now they're afraid because... they developed nukes.
If they had no nukes, they would be anothee insignificant SE Asian country, with nothing to fear from the US.
Of course, N Korea is ALSO a brutal dictatorship with no respect for human rights.
And before all you US haters try to slam the US, ask yourself what american transgressions have to do with this. Drawing parallels is a cheap way to deflect the discussion away from the point, so don't bother.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds a lot like this other country I know, the United States. I don't know how long it will take people to realize that the ordinary citizen, with all the "brainwashing" that supposedly goes on doesn't give a fuck about international politics and just wants to go on with their daily business. As for the Korean war, let's not start mentioning other wars where the North of something attacked the South of something or vice versa due to political reasons. The United States got involved in a war between 2 other groups to advance it own agenda, as it tends to do. Any anti-US sentiment is IMHO justified, especially since North Korea feels (and quite rightly) threatened by the current administration of a country that attacked it 50 years ago.
There is no "powder keg waiting to go off" since the populace is not in control of the nukes (or anything else for that matter). The people in charge aren't going to go start a war because they know they will lose (and the people at the top have the most to lose). They will try to arm themselves so as to create a deterent to the attack from the US that they know is coming.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand we have a country with an extremely strong cult of personality around its leader. We have a populace that is brainwashed constantly about it being under threat and the evil of the "Axis of Evil". Its citizens are taught that Hussein started the Iraqi war by attacking on 9/11, even though there's documents showing that they had nothing to do with it. Every evening the government-influenced TV shows a military attack. The country is a f**king powerkeg of anti-Korean, anti-east sentiment just waiting to go off.
Just sayin'
Re:Korea (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's all jokes but.... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's EVEN more frightening is that they've wanted to have talks with the US for years, but the US has refused any direct negociations with them.
BS, negotiations were ignored because they werent negotiations, they were blackmail and scams. NKorea want financial or economic benefits in return for not building a nuclear stockpile. It was a joke. They actually wanted cash to stop!
In case you dont know, building nuclear weapons can take decades or research and testing. These are not new revelations in the last 3 years. The very fact that these totalitarian countries desire weapons to protect them from free countries should be enough to classify them as a threat to humanity.
Not sure where you get your news from, try cross checking with multiple sources before you accept "news" as fact.
right (Score:4, Insightful)
Not like the USA, who merely sold tons of chemicals to Saddam, even well aware they were going to be used as chemical weapons against his people. Even after he massacred a whole village with those chemicals, the USA happily supplied him with more.
"Nice try blaming the U.S., but unless North Korea travelled in time, going to the future, to see the 2nd Iraq war, you can hardly say they accelerated their Nuke program because of it. Iran had a nuke program long before the U.S. invasion. Libya had a nuke program before the invasion."
Ofcourse, there was also the 1st Iraq war, and besides that, your argumentation lacks coherency. In what way does it exclude that the nations, even if they already had nuclear programs as you claim, accelaerated that program after the Iraq-wars? I fail to see any logic in this particular reasoning of you.
Re:You need proof? (Score:1, Insightful)
You do know Pakistan has nuclear weapons right? Then traded their nuclear know how for N. Korea's medium range missiles or have you not been following the news.
You say that like they did a bad thing.
The fact is, the USA has demonstrated repeatedly that if you don't have an effective means of defending yourself against them, you are going to be pushed around and possibly invaded. And it doesn't matter if you are their ally, things change quickly.
Basically, every other country is likely to cooperate with each other to defend themselves against the USA. It's a sensible thing to do and I don't blame them one bit for doing it.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel quite sad for Cuba. Eventually the U.S. will come back in and "liberate" the country. Then it will be a violent free market hell with a surging infant death rate. At least if you keep your nose clean there today, you can live to be quite old and healthy, if not rich.
If the U.S. hadn't kept the country isolated from the NA market for the last half century, perhaps we would have seen the world's best socialist experiment. Maybe they could have made it work, like China has. With a 90 mile separation from the U.S., they could have become quite the tourist destination and manufacturing center. I think they are instead doomed to a military/corporate invasion in the near future. Poor bastards.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not illegal for North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.
Bush has tossed away several treaties we've already signed regarding development of nuclear weapons. We're not special children of God's army, so the privilege is open to other nations now.
They are busy starving, and not menacing us.
They have been explicitly informed by Bush that he is going to make a point of destroying them. They have an excellent case for defending themselves. They have a logical case that possessing the weapons deters an invasion by Bush. By Bushian logic, we haven't invaded, so possessing the nukes keeps us out. Q.E.D.
They aren't going to attack anyone with the damned things. It would be instant suicide. CNN would be roasting radioactive weenies on their ashes in a month, chuckling at the wonderfulness of it all.
Wrapup: they have the weapons for the exact same reason the U.S. claimed it needed ours. Deterence.
The evil or not-evil of North Korea is irrelevant. Bush et al support Uzbekistan, which boils its dissidents alive in oil. Evil is a convenient label for removing people you don't like."
Labelled a troll? It's a simple statement of several obvious facts. Deal with it, wingers. Moderation is not meant for political hitmen to use to stifle information.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Truman's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're going to blame anyone, blame Clinton, who accepted the 1994 deal in which we gave NK resources to prop up their economy, in turn for them... keeping the nuclear material they already had! And us trusting them not to turn it into weapons! Brilliant!
Now, in the unlikely but still frighteningly plausible idea that we do have a war with NK, we have the pleasure of dealing with nuclear weapons in the hands of madmen, in addition to the gazillion pieces of artillery that will pound Seoul into dust.
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:3, Insightful)
A small part of the reason may be that South Korea is a bit more temperate, but the reality is North Korea has suffered decades of mismanagement. Is the correct solution to the problem a) take over another sovereign nation and exploit their resources, or b) realize the err of your ways and begin an economic overhaul (with China as a possible example)?
The reason the US has troops still stationed in Korea is the very same reason there are US troops in Taiwan. The minute we leave, a new war begins... see Viet Nam if you need an example. Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?
Lets remember why the root cause of any of this.
You can't possibly be suggesting that this is South Korea's fault, can you?
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And Saddam's Bluff got him invaded (Score:1, Insightful)
The policy is obviously not to give in to the dictator's demands. The Bush administration is taking a slower pace on N. Korea, as it is quite unstable and in a terminal decline. Their collapse would happily be the end of all this chest-thumping nuclear showmanship. Here's to the most oppressive regime on Earth.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
Sentiments and emotions are no excuse to distort the truth or posting something as a fact when it isn't.
Re:Thank Goodness... (Score:1, Insightful)
You also realise that the US would not dare contemplate using nukes in retaliation, they are not that stupid, despite what we all like to pretend. The US people would accept the massive slaughter of all the civilians in Pyongyang?
Re:History is propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you make an effort to read and compare a wide enough range of historians and primary sources, you can sort out a much better approximation for the truth. My own efforts on this front have completely changed my understanding of politics and economics.
This is not how schools teach history, unfortunately. What you learn in school is indeed saturated with propganda.
Peace (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?
Killing flies with a flyswatter- better long-term (Score:4, Insightful)
It took Europe (and the rest of the world) YEARS to realize that toothless agreements made with a certain German tyrant were ineffective and diplomacy had to give way to the use of force.
This is why there will always come a time when force becomes necessary (same as with human-human interactions), although we would obviously try to keep this to a minimum.
There will also come times when a country that believes that it is in the right (even to the disagreement of others), and has the bravery and might to make things right, does so
In any event, I wish that idealists would please give up their pipe dreams of world peace through diplomatic means only. It won't happen. As long as there will be violence in our society (bar fights, spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime), there will be idiots in power that must be stopped with the use of force.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the US, Russia, France, India, etc. have alot to lose in terms of trade, wealth, which prevents them from using nuclear weapons. Now do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of somebody with nothing to lose? Mutally assured distruction prevents nuclear war, only so long as both sides care that they don't want to be destroyed. There are groups of zealots all over the world who don't care if they live or die, so long as "evil" is destroyed. That is where the danger lies in nuclear proliferation.
The US is not the only target for N. Korea. Japan, Guam, S. Korea would be the most likely targets, since N. Korea I don't think has demonstrated a long range missle capable of hitting the US (though they have developed one that can hit Japan) . I'm sure if you lived in either of those countries, you would really appreciate nobody caring about N. Korea getting nuclear weapons.
to date you are the only country that has used them to kill people
And used them to end a war quickly to save lives. The firebombing of Tokyo and battle of Okinawa each killed about the same number people as each atomic bomb.
No Hitler was Worse (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with the following statement from wikipedia:
"How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin
When comparing death tolls, its important to keep in mind that the 8 to 20 million of people "killed" by Stalin for the most part are not people who were deliberately killed in the purges between 1936 and 1938. The 8 to 20 million is overwhelmingly people who incidentally died in famines that were partially the result of Stalin's economic policies.
I think including the famine numbers in the "death toll" figure is legitimate, even if those deaths were unintentional. If you don't think that's its reasonable to compare Hitler's Holocaust to Stalin's unintended economic blunders, then Hitler's death toll is far, far greater.
If you do think its perfectly fair to attribute deaths that are a direct if unintentional result of their actions to somebody's death toll, then I contend that nearly all fatalities of WWII (excepting China, Japan, and other Pacific casualties) are on Hitler's shoulder's. That would bring Hitler's death toll to about 70 million.
Either way, Hitler was the worse of the monsters.
Re:let's examine that (Score:3, Insightful)
Ofcourse, this is true for other countries as well.
Unfortunatly, the recent history shows us that the USA is:
1)Able AND willing to invade another country (even when not directly a threat), in a 'pre-emptive' manner.
2)The USA does not do the same (even when the same arguments/reasons apply) when it could seriously get hurt in the process.
Following those observations, and seen the fact that a country actually having nukes poses too great a risk for the USA to invade, the only logical conclusion for those countries (especially those on bad terms with the US) is that they *have* to have nukes, to be sure they will not get invaded.
Re:Slashdot - bastion of Anti-American rhetoric? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. This is one of the ways that our increasingly polarized society expresses itself. There are also many people who *never* acknowledge that the US has been a poor public citizen in the world. Not always, but we have had our bad moments.
As with any conflict it is no one's fault entirely. There are always things that both sides of a conflict could do to make things better. An honest discussion of current radical muslim terrorism (for example) would take into account the repressive and nihilist fundamentalism of the "terrorists" but would also recognize that the US has been overthrowing governments, exploiting local populations, and generally fscking with the Middle East region for half a century at least. This is bound to piss people off. Like the Merovingian said, it's all cause and effect.
"Brutal dictators that murder their own people? Blame us."
Again, this is one side of the issue. You may not like it (I sure don't) but we have, and continue to, arm brutal dictators around the world for our own purposes. It does not absolve the dictators of being brutal, but it is dishonest to pretend we had nothing to do with it. When Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians, he was doing it with the knowledge and implicit consent of the United States government. Hell, we gave him sattelite pictures of Iranian troop movements so he could better target them with chemical weapons! But this is never discussed in public. Why is it unpatriotic to point out when my country is behaving badly? But as to why I am so hard on the US, it's because it's my country. I care more about how my country acts on the world stage (and domestically too of course). When George Bush says you are with us or against us, he is speaking for me. When he says the US won't join the world court because it won't give us immunity, he makes me look like a hypocrite.
I am hard on the US because I love the US. It is still the best country to live in IMHO. I cherish the rights and freedoms we have, and I am upset when I see them threatened. Not by an invading army, but by my own government.
"Maybe they should start acting a bit more rational and patriotic - and a bit less like homo pinko commie politcally correct appeaser pacifist traitors."
This type of language undermines whatever point you were making. The motto "My country, right or wrong" is not patriotic, it is nationalistic. There's a difference.
Re:This Policy is not a US invention (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Korean War ('scuse, "police action") (Score:2, Insightful)
Korea - we want to develop nuclear WEAPONS
USA - we will PAY YOU not to develop them, and help you develop power
USA - Here's your check (I recall $2,000,000, but I think that's low).
Korea - THANKS!
Korea - We want to develop Nuclear WEAPONS
USA - We ain't payin' you this time!
Korea - Fuck you
USA - LET'S NEGOTIATE
Korea - Fuck you
Korea - We got bombs now!
I've gotten facts wrong on posts before, so your post is forgivable. I followed this and supported the Clinton Administration decision to play the "blackmail" money. My thinking: What the hey, it's only money. *shrugs* But all that did was postpone (possibly aid?) Korea's drive for a Nuclear Arsenal.
And it was obvious to me, and the Bush administration -- who actuallly followed/remembered past dealings -- that last year's rumblings from North Korea was just another money blackmail attempt.
So don't just rag on the US and the Bush administration. North Korea is the one making the weapons and using them as a threat... Oh and they have an ICBM capable of striking Japan, who they hate with a passion...
-Pie
Re:Raise your hands... (Score:3, Insightful)
The bit I have trouble understanding is the bit where according to you it suddenly "failed", providing the jusitification for an attack. See, Hussein was bending over backwards to comply with all US demands, and the UN inspectors said sanctions were working fine and that there were no weapons. The rest of the world was happy to continue with a policy of containment. But to you and the Bush regime, Iraq was now suddenly a target for invasion.
Lets not go through this all again. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Iraq was not a threat. The intelligence community knew it. The US and UK governments knew it. The reasons for invasion lay elsewhere (hint: all wars are fought for economic reasons). The whole world is aware of this. Including everybody in your own country who doesn't have his head up his ass. Why don't you get it?
Re:Raise your hands... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you read any of the weapons reports issued by the ISG and the UN you would know that Saddam wasn't bending over backwards to comply with US demands. He was bending over backwards to create the illusion of compliance so we would leave him alone. His main goal was to end the UN sanctions so he could resume his weapons programs that he had done a pretty damn good job of hiding from the UN inspectors.
Lets not go through this all again. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Iraq was not a threat. The intelligence community knew it. The US and UK governments knew it. The reasons for invasion lay elsewhere (hint: all wars are fought for economic reasons). The whole world is aware of this. Including everybody in your own country who doesn't have his head up his ass. Why don't you get it?
Why don't you get it? The reasons for the war have been clearly justified by our subsequent investigations. Saddam Hussein was clearly a threat to the peace and security of the region, and was in defiance of international order for 13 years.
Take a step back and look at what you are saying! Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator who:
Tried to illegally expand his borders TWICE
Attacked a non-hostile state at least FOUR times
Used Chemical weapons on a number of occasions, both against Iran and against his own people
Publically stated his goal of obtaining Nuclear and Biological Weapons
Was on the US State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism for over 20 years
Was directly responsible for between 500,000 and 2,000,000 deaths of his own people
Had participated actively in international terrorism, including a plot to assassinate a former US president, and a plot to bomb a radio facility in Prague
Had paid families of terrorist bombers on LIVE TV
Had offered political assylum to Osama Bin Laden in 1998
Was currently providing assylum to Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters that escaped Afghanistan in December 2001
Was in direct defiance of 17 unanimously passed chapter 7 UN Security Council resolutions
Had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that the UN Inspectors knew about, including 30,000 liters of Anthrax
How on earth can you claim that this was not a threat? How on earth can you claim that the world is not any safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power?
Combine the above facts with the fact that we just had got our butts kicked on 9/11 by a similar threat that we had ignored, and leaving him alone so he could write the playbook for any rouge despot who wanted to defy the US and the UN was NOT an option.
Re:You need proof? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are really being ignorant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think "admits" is probably the wrong word. (Score:2, Insightful)
Could that same size force hold it indefinately? Probably not.
Well, they have one huge advantage over Iraq - the South Korea, with its strong economy and well-organized and trained military. They are well capable of rebuilding the North economically and probably also socially. They are probably not capable, however, of defeating the North militarily on their own.
ermm (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I just explained why: even when they won't, there is a chance they'll get invaded. That's what happend with Iraq, after all. So, are they going for that option? That's wishful thinking, not the obvious step of countries capable of creating nukes and on bad terms with the USA. As I said, seen that they feel threatened by the USA, those will create nukes. Exactly what N.Korea and Iran is doing.
It only looks like a catch 22 on first sight; in reality, even the USA can't permit to invade one country after another. It would be political and military suicide. I think it's all too obvious the USA has more then it bargened for in Iraq, and I don't think anyone would seriously believe the USA would invade another country, before they settled with Iraq first. Even the roman empire tried to avoid battling on two fronts at the same time.
So, in effect, the invasion of Iraq created at the same time the obvious pressure/threat of the USA *and* provided a period where it will rather bark then bite to other countries.
So, what they *really* think is: let's build nukes as fast as we can, so we're safe by the time the USA would feel arrogant enough to pre-emptively attack again.
As an european, I can relativate that to the current USA government, but I doubt those countries can or will.
And it must be said, while under Clinton relations over the big dipper were pretty good, I think most USA-citizens fail to realise how much sympathy the US has lost even among europeans. 'Our' politicians, being diplomatic, only show the top of the iceberg, really. The opinion about the USA among the people is hugely negative these days, and that sentiment is reflected by all layers of the populace.
Re:Raise your hands... (Score:4, Insightful)
As to whether Sadaam was bending over backwards to comply genuinely or merely to seem to comply genuinely, who cares what he felt about it? The point was to make him comply and that is, (according to both the inspectors *and* UK and US intelligence) exactly what he was doing, whether he was enjoying it or not.
Your "charge sheet" bullet point list is not in dispute. He was an asshole dictator, just like numerous other asshole dictators around the world, many of them still supported by the US just like Sadaam used to be. But it is a straw man. The charge sheet is completely irrelevant to the question of "was he a big enough menace to justify invasion". None of these crimes made him a unique and direct threat to US national security which is presumably why the exaggerations about possible possession of WMD's had to be concocted as a pretext for war.
As to whether the earth is safer without Sadaam Hussein running Iraq - I am sure that some of his closest neighbours feel safer. But most of the world is I think a lot more worried about the new jackboot politics of the neocons in Washington. After all, Sadaam had very little capability to deliver destruction outside of his own immediate region. The US however has demonstrated both its capability to wage wars of shocking destructiveness against relatively defenseless enemies on the other side of the world (with an almost total disregard for tens of thousands of civilian casualties), *and* its willingness to do so regardless of all international opinion.
If the Iraq invasion was meant to be a response to 9/11 then it was truly an overreaction on a major scale. I'm not even going to get into how the White House tried for a long time to make it look like Saddam had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and failed to make it stick. But you're suggesting that its reasonable and acceptable to go around invading sovereign nations on the off chance that they might possibly assist terrorists later on. In the eyes of the rest of the world today, it's not reasonable and it's not acceptable. Especially when they are, as you were ready to admit, bent over backwards and pleading with you not to do it.
In your Hollywood movies, the hero is the guy who is viciously attacked but then goes after the perpetrator, gives him a taste of his own medicine thus humiliating him and turning him into a snivelling cowering wreck. Then he shows mercy and backs off saying "let that be a lesson". But the image of America today is of a protagonist who, with only a bloody nose (4,000 dead) in the first instance inflicted by someone else entirely who he couldn't get to, couldn't even be satisfied with winning against some other convenient bully of choice but had to beat seven colours of shit out of him as well in order that everybody would know who was the strongest.
Well, congratulations - so you are the strongest bully in the playground. But you're no hero, you're nobody's policeman and if this is you doing unasked favours for the rest of the world, no thanks and please don't do it in our name. We'd rather deal with a dozen small-time bullies on our own terms and take a bloody nose occasionally (the price of freedom maybe), than have to cope with a lone superpower bully who is bigger than everybody and beholden to nobody.
Re:Korea (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to what america wants you to believe, the greenback is NOT the defacto standard for world pricing anymore, the Euro is. Put a couple of charts side by side, one the price of oil (in us dollars), the other the exchange rate between the us dollar and the Euro. They will look surprisingly similar. Compare that to a chart of oil vs the Euro, and you'll see a relatively stable pricing environment, with some increases that basically are accounted for by the reduced world supply thanks to a war in iraq, and the uncertainty that brings to the market.
The greenback will not regain it's former strength till americans start running a balanced budet. For those that dont understand the concept, it means spending only what you take in, no charge cards allowed, and no negative balances carried forward. Since this is a concept that nobody in the usa even comes close to comprehending (how many of you have credit cards maxed out today?), it's never gonna happen. The american economy is imploding under an unmanageable debt load, and the only way to stop it, is for every american to actually pay off thier credit cards, and the government to run a balanced budget. Not gonna happen in our lifetime.