What to do about North Korea...?

Recently, Bob Fry posted:

"Jose" == Jose writes:

Jose respected by the world. We have squandered whatever
Jose credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next
Jose fifty years.

I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his
team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate
president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for
both the US and its relations with the world.

Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the
Midwest and South reject them.

As I see it, the problem is that while critical fundamental principles
guiding our nation should not be up to the whim of particular politicians
or political parties, the reality is that they are. Therefore, once we
have shown a willingness to act in ways that are morally repugnant, there
is no guarantee that we won't do it again when the mood suits us. It is
completely reasonable for those outside our borders is to expect that at
some point we will again act in the worst ways that we have in the past.
50 years may not be long enough to provide convince others of our good
intentions, if one considers that we are the only nation on the planet to
nuke somebody, and we are still actively developing ways to nuke somebody
else.

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population? As I see it, it's a good thing NK
doesn't have any oil.

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
"his" population?

time for a reality check.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Recently, Bob Noel posted:

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of
North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last
50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of
Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on
the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of
pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
protecting "his" population?

Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
do.

time for a reality check.

Indeed.

For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
Pacific Ocean is. Then compare that figure with the experts' opinions of
the range of the Taepodong-2 missile sans payload (which though it has
never been successfully flown, its "range" has been somehow increased
about 3x from their original statements). Then try to reconcile the
completely irresponsible claims being made about it being able to deliver
a nuclear weapon that could reach the lower 48 states.

You're being had yet again.

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
protecting "his" population?

Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
do.

well, such a question isn't relevant. Rationale sane people are not in charge
of the nk government.

but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away
government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of
my citizens are starving.


time for a reality check.

Indeed.

For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
Pacific Ocean is.

perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path
for something between nk and the USA.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Recently, Bob Noel posted:

Rationale sane people are not
in charge of the nk government.

Some think the same about our leaders.

but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
systems when millions of my citizens are starving.

I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going
to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and
sane approach?

perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the
flight path for something between nk and the USA.

That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still*
doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the
lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is?

Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

Rationale sane people are not
in charge of the nk government.

Some think the same about our leaders.

some people think the world is flat



but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
systems when millions of my citizens are starving.

I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
Evil",

not ****ing off and "cozy up" are not at all the same thing.


[snip]

perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the
flight path for something between nk and the USA.

That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still*
doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the
lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is?

I had to wonder if you had a clue since the dimension of the pacific ocean
isn't particularly when you go great circle route.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Rationale sane people are not
in charge of the nk government.

Some think the same about our leaders.

I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true.

but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
systems when millions of my citizens are starving.

I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going
to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and
sane approach?

You don't seem to get it. The world (yes, it's not just your horrid
United States of America)warned North Korea not to launch any more
missiles toward Japan under the guise of "testing" them.

In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what
could have been an all-out retaliatory strike.

I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
government? Good grief...

Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions
against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving
that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always.

Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and
present danger to the U.S., and its allies -- and as of this evening
they are now threatening to fire even MORE missiles into the Sea of
Japan. President Bush, by labeling NK part of the "Axis of Evil", has
correctly identified North Korea as one of the main enemies of freedom
in the world -- as their actions clearly illustrate.

Most thinking people understand the logic of this position, and it
alarms me that there are apologists in this group for (I can't believe
I'm writing this!) the actions of Kim Jong Il -- a man who aspires to
join the despicable ranks of Stalin, Mao, and his own father. What
are you guys *thinking*?

The fact that we currently have an administration in power that
actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate
stroke of luck in world history. Can you imagine what Clinton (or
Kerry? Or Gore?) would be doing right now? God almighty, we'd be
showering Kim with gifts, offering him a state visit, and firing cruise
missiles into the Libyan desert to divert the media's attention...

Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may
have to go it alone against North Korea -- and once again the majority
of Americans (and, I believe, the world) will support such an action.
But what a shame...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what
could have been an all-out retaliatory strike.

hey - I just had a thought.... maybe NK was actually just trying to help
the USA with its fourth of July celebration!!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Recently, Jay Honeck posted:

Rationale sane people are not
in charge of the nk government.

Some think the same about our leaders.

I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true.

I'd suspect that "people you've met" would be an insignificant sample size
of the world's population.

I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
government? Good grief...

From the frame of mind of those in that region, I'd say yes, it was sane.
How do you think it will play out? We're not going to attack NK any more
than we're going to attack Pakistan or Iran, and pretty much for the same
reasons; the consequences are dire. That concept is slowly sinking into
Bush's dense skull.

Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions
against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving
that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always.

Given that the Russians and Chinese really *are* within range of NK's
weapons, it would seem that their opinions should carry more weight than
ours.

Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and
present danger to the U.S.

You're being had, yet again.

The fact that we currently have an administration in power that
actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate
stroke of luck in world history.

We'll see. It appears that the Bush administration's actions have cause
more harm to our reputation than otherwise, and the mess that they created
in the Middle East will have negative repercussions for decades, if not
centuries. How do you see it playing out otherwise?

Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may
have to go it alone against North Korea --

It won't happen, unless Bush is truly insane.

Neil

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
"his" population?

Exactly my response when I read the initial paragraph.