Congressional Report on North Korea

[mf_dolphin]

Theis a report prepared for Congress on the North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program. I thought that some of you might enjoy reading it..

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf

[Stephanie]

That was very informative Marshall!

It looks like the US will be welching on that energy deal that was promised to be forthcoming in 2003. Perhaps this has inflamed NK abit? It looked like diplomacy was working during the 90's and NK was getting all of the attention it wanted, but it also seemed as if it prevented them from generating nuclear power and weapons. Now we've called them a part of the "Axis of Evil", ruffled their feathers and we're surprised that they now ARE a concern. Hmmmm... President Bush was quoted in that article that he didn't want to have a war on two fronts, but it looks like he's got them now!

[mf_dolphin]

I think you missed a major part of the article. The troubles started when North Korea admitted it had continued pursuing a nuclear arms program in violation of the treaty that rewarded them with oil and nuclear power plants that were capable of generating much more power without having weapons applicaion. What seemed to work was Clinton giving in to nuclear blackmail in the first place. They took our oil and aid and kept right on producing a nuclear weapons program.

[Stephanie]

That is true, but we weren't being threatened back then were we?

[sunny shine]

That is true, but we weren't being threatened back then were we?

No, we were not threatened back then. But thanks to Clinton, he gave them what they needed for future threats by giving into their blackmail.

[mf_dolphin]

Actually we were being threatened by the very same thing we are now. Nuclear blackmail! The oil and aide were given to North Korea in exchange for them ceasing their development of a nuclear weapons program. Something that they apparently never did....

Technically we have been at war with North Korea non-stop since the 50's. The only documents that were signed were cease-fire agreements. I would beg you look at the US men and women that man the dimilarized zone and ask them if we are threatened by North Korea.

[Stephanie]

So, we're saying that NK is a threat to the US? As much as Iraq perhaps?

[mf_dolphin]

I have always agreed that North Korea is a threat. IMO what's happening there is nothing new and is being handled diplomatically as it should be at this point. What I don't agree on is that North Korea presents any bigger threat than they did 8 years ago when the nuclear issue was addressed the last time. The attitude of "the sky is falling" about their untested ICM capability that can reach the US is just not that worrisome to me at this point in time.

We have forces set to counter the threat should they choose to attack first. That has been the plan since the ceasefire some 50 years ago and will probably be the plan for the rest of our lifetimes.

The reason that I don't see North Korea as such a big threat right now is that geographically they are fairly well contained. While they bluster and threaten they have a long history of doing just that and nothing more. Saddam invaded not one but two neighboring countries (Iran and Kuwait) and continues to attempt to rearm in spite of current UN restrictions. The last time I looked it's been 50 years since North Korea did the same. As long as diplomacy and the containment policy works there isn't any reason for us to escalate the military options.

[Stephanie]

Well, I think that any type of diplomacy does contain some "blackmail" of some sorts...

I don't really think I'd like to see if their untested ICM does or does not work. Actually, we know that they have nuclear weapons here - do we really know that Saddam Hussein has them too?

[chadtm80]

do we really know that Saddam Hussein has them too?

ummmmmm YES!!!!!!

[mf_dolphin]

I don't understand what point if any you're trying to make.

Well, I think that any type of diplomacy does contain some "blackmail" of some sorts...

I can't even begin to say how much I disagree with the above statement. It's not even worth a response..

I don't really think I'd like to see if their untested ICM does or does not work.

Neither do I but there is absolutely nothing that says they can't have one. We may not like it but that does not give us the right to take pre-emptive action against North Korea. If you want to see a possible WWIII then that is what we should do.

Actually, we know that they have nuclear weapons here - do we really know that Saddam Hussein has them too?

Actually most of the information I read says Saddam does not currently have a nuclear weapon. However we do know that he has tons of chemical and biological weapons that he is forbidden to have. Remember, he lost the war. Tha destruction of these weapons was mandated by the UN as part of the cesation of hostilities 12 years ago. He has been given every opportunity to destroy these weapons and has not. Pure and simple.

[chadtm80]

mf_dolphin -N- Stephanie

[Rainband]

IMHO NK is toying with us now because we look weak. The United States needs to invade Iraq and do it quickly . I don't know about anyone else but if this turns out to be all talk and no walk, we are going to be in trouble. :? I understand we have to go through the proper channels but from what I have seen we are going to wind up doing it without UN support . I also think it's easy to blame all the presidents before for all the problems now. I understand Clinton didn't do everything right, well almost everything LMAO but it would be just as easy to blame Bush senior for not taking out Saddam before and yada yada yada... :? Pointing the finger isn't the answer, dealing with the problems is. Thats why politics aren't my forte. I think it's dirty pool. :o We have to lie to one country to get something in turn from another. Saddam used to be our friend when we helped him fight Iran and now look at this mess. :o I wonder who our next friend turned enemy will be??? It's hard for the United States to know who to trust anymore. All I know is Bush has a full plate. He has to get this war with Iraq done and over with, fix the economy and cut taxes like he promised. IMHO It doesn't matter what a president does there will always be someone to knock him down .


Johnathan 8)

[Stephanie]

I don't understand what point if any you're trying to make.

Well, I think that any type of diplomacy does contain some "blackmail" of some sorts...

I can't even begin to say how much I disagree with the above statement. It's not even worth a response..

I don't really think I'd like to see if their untested ICM does or does not work.

Neither do I but there is absolutely nothing that says they can't have one. We may not like it but that does not give us the right to take pre-emptive action against North Korea. If you want to see a possible WWIII then that is what we should do.

Actually, we know that they have nuclear weapons here - do we really know that Saddam Hussein has them too?

Actually most of the information I read says Saddam does not currently have a nuclear weapon. However we do know that he has tons of chemical and biological weapons that he is forbidden to have. Remember, he lost the war. Tha destruction of these weapons was mandated by the UN as part of the cesation of hostilities 12 years ago. He has been given every opportunity to destroy these weapons and has not. Pure and simple.

The point is that diplomacy has been used in the past by Clinton and every other president since the 1950's. "Arm twisting" is a word often used (i.e. what is currently being done now with Turkey to reconsider letting us use their country for a base), which I'm sure includes alittle blackmail here and there.

Anyway, right now you're saying that nothing should be done against NK even though they've violated there agreement. You also discussed how it probably should be left to the UN to sort it all out. I find it very curious that on the one hand, we're treating one country that is threatening us and has nuclear weapons now very differently than another country that hasn't threatened us, we don't believe has nuclear weapons, and we don't give a crap what the UN says or not. You're saying that these threats from NK doesn't give us the right to take a pre-emptive strike against NK, yet you're all for doing that with Iraq?

OH, and BTW Chad - see Marshall's post. It seems that ummm... NO WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS![/i]

[mf_dolphin]

You seem to ignore the reasons why I've stated I feel that way. So I'll try one more time:

Iraq - They lost a war 12 years ago. As a settlement condition of that war they were to disarm. They have repeatedly violated that agreement and have instead attempted to rearm. The President has said that they present a clear and present danger to the strategic interests of the US. Therefore, if they won't comply with the disarmament then we will disarm them by force.

Korea - There is no mandated resolution from the UN that North Korea disarm. The violateion of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty had been referred to the Security Council by the appropriate UN body for consideration. As of yet the Security Council has not met on this issue. While the President has included North Korea in his Axis of Evil he has not made a "Clear and Present Danger" determination on them. (at least not publicly)

Right now North Korea has done nothing more than talk agressively. Hardly the basis for a pre-emptive strike. The fact that they are developing a nuclear program does not give us the right to launch a pre-emptive strike IMO. If that were the case then we would have hit Pakistan, India and several other countries.

North Korea is and has been hostile to the US for 50+ years. The US troops are in South Korea for one and one reason only. They are there to pose a major problem for the North Koreans in that if they attack to the south they are automatically involving the US. That one fact has prevented South Korea from falling many years ago.

I would be real interested to see a detailed post from you on how you see each of these situations and why.

[OtherHD]

Let's play Devil's Advocate!

Isn't it reasonable to assume that, since Saddam has miscalculated the American force so many times, that he wouldn't be stupid enough to attack anyone else again? Is it possible that he may have learned his lesson and all he wants to do is stay right where he is?

[mf_dolphin]

If Saddam wanted to avoid the confrontation he would have complied with the disarmament orders. His pursuit of nuclear weapons and the continued development of extended range missile systems speaks loudly to his agressive nature and intent. I think that once again he is misjudging a US president. He has lead the UN along for so long and gotten away with expelling the inspectors that he thinks we will back down again. With Kuwait I actually think that he thought that he would inflict so many casualties that we would lose resolve. This time I don't think we will follow through.

[Stephanie]

Marshall -

Let's put it this way. I have been putting my detailed opinions as to why I feel the way I do about both situations. Yes, you have all of the facts and figures that you post and feel for some reason that if I don't have any supporting documentation then my opinions are not meaningful, hold no weight, etc. To me, the facts between both of these situations are interesting and very relevant, however, I don't see a basic difference between the treatment of the two situations. One to me, seems more inherently dangerous than the other at this point. The fact that you state in some posts that the UN is basically irrelevant since they are not supporting the US, yet they should being handling the NK situation is totally inconsistent and double speak. I'm sure that if I agreed with everything that you said, yet had nothing to back it up, then that would be totally acceptable. We'll just agree to disagree. I won't be changing your mind anytime soon and you certainly won't be changing mine.

[mf_dolphin]

I didn'y say your opinions weren't important, everyones are I just asked for any basis on which you have formed your opinions. I agree that we will probably always disagree and that's ok by me.

The difference in my eyes is that Iraq has gone through the UN process for 12 years and now we have a disagreement with the UN of the final disposition. President Bush will do what ever he feels is in the best interest of the US. That's his job...

North Korea is just starting down the UN path and until we see how they are going to handle the situation we won't know what we need to do. When the time comes, North Korea will be dealt with in one way or the other. My guess is that once again a diplomatic resolution will occur. However, if they chose to continue to escalate the issue we may very well have to deal with them militarily.