The conundrum of North Korea

Sometimes there are problems without solutions. For example, North Korea.

To those outside its borders, the behavior of North Korea seems driven by madness. Its actions make no sense; they seem random and incoherent, carried out with no apparent long-term in mind.

But that’s probably wrong. Those actions — testing nuclear weapons, firing missiles — probably do make some kind of sense when viewed from the only perspective that matters in North Korea, from inside the government. It’s a schizophrenic state, listening only to the voices inside its own head and not at all to those of the outside world.

That makes it a problem to be managed, not solved. The first President Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush all took different approaches, but with equally little or no progress. The same will likely be true of Barack Obama. Again, what’s going on inside North Korea is far more determinative than anything that happens outside.

So, we have to be ready for military action should that come; we have to contain North Korea’s nuclear weaponry, technology and material, so the problem doesn’t spread. And we have to be prepared for the day when it all falls apart.

212 comments Add your comment

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
8:33 am

Paging President Jintao….

lovelyliz

May 27th, 2009
8:38 am

This could be about trying to save face. North Korea has nothing going for it but its nuclear program and they use that as leverage. Heaven forbud they admit their people are starving and they need help. No, what NK will do is run some nuclear tests, kidnap some South Korean fisherman and then negotiate a trade for million of pounds in food and aid that they will be given because of their “superiority”.

RW-(the original)

May 27th, 2009
8:39 am

But didn’t the UN send a strongly worded letter?

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
8:40 am

Yeah, hopeandchange.duh doesn’t seem to be making a difference, does it?

And here I thought the world was gonna love us.

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
8:41 am

Well, let’s check in with our neoconservative friends and see what they recommend, shall we?

“Nuke ‘em! NUKE ‘EM ALL! U-S-A! U-S-A!”

Ahh, thank you. Very helpful. And surprisingly similar to your recommendations for all other foreign-policy issues! Hope you enjoyed your run, now go sit in the corner again. The grownups are talking.

Now: Does anyone have any PRODUCTIVE ideas with a prayer of actually WORKING?

Curious Observer

May 27th, 2009
8:45 am

Contain North Korea’s nuclear weaponry, technology and material? And how do we do that in a country in which the opinion of the outside world counts for nothing and the influence of other countries, even China, is nil?

The beating of the war drum that we read about today may be a symptom of an internal power struggle in North Korea–a struggle to determine the successor to the ailing current leader. It is not unheard of for a country to start a war in order to garner internal support. That’s the truly scary aspect of the current developments in North Korea. That country apparently sees itself as having little to lose if it launches an attack on South Korea, and the disavowal of the truce that has lasted for more than fifty years makes that prospect even more likely. This may be much more than the actions of a three-year-old threatening to hold its breath if it does not get its way. Somebody had better be considering the prospects of another Korean war, with all the diplomatic complications it would bring. It is far too late to be talking about containment now.

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
8:48 am

Medicare Part A will run out of funds to pay promised benefits by 2017, with a 20% shortfall in revenues. Paying all promised benefits for Part A alone over the long run would require raising the total Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% today to 12%. That is in addition to the Social Security payroll tax of 12.4% today, which would have to increase to close to 18% to pay all promised benefits for that program. That would result in a total payroll tax rate of 30%.

Given this overwhelming financial disaster, does it make sense for the government to take on even more financial burdens through Medicare? Medicare is supposed to be for retirees. What would all these new financial burdens for everyone do to the program originally intended for them?

Indeed, one has to ask, do the Medicare for All nuts even understand numbers? Or are they what they appear to be, numerically illiterate?-Amspec

My guess is they are illiterate.

But this could be a good thing, why would North Korea/ China want to invade us if it means they get stuck with all the bills we can’t pay?

George American

May 27th, 2009
8:48 am

We need to get tough with this 2nd-rate rice republic.

Strong and decisive military action will show the world that America is the last super power and we won’t tolerate their commie saber rattling.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
8:49 am

Put an embargo on big gold sunglasses and they will crumble.

Brad Steel

May 27th, 2009
8:50 am

Whiner spews: “And here I thought the world was gonna love us.”

Whiner, no one cares what you thought or what you think. Save it for your Hello-Kitty diary.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
8:51 am

George,

Like we did with Iraq?

Austin Powers

May 27th, 2009
8:53 am

I am ready and willing to face Dr. Evil when my country calls.

RW-(the original)

May 27th, 2009
8:55 am

Meanwhile back in what’s left of the good old USA….

A little window into the new American business model

I’ve got to head to the forest, but if I run into Paul on an open or dead thread later I’m really starting to rethink my entire position on campaign finance, assuming we’ll still have elections in the future.

Bye!

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
8:58 am

Wait, aren’t we supposed to invade countries that have WMD? Isn’t that the plan?

George American

May 27th, 2009
8:58 am

jewCB,
The watered-down, 1/2-assed effort in Iraq was due to the congressional democrats and surrender monkeys lack of support for the military. Their contempt for the military and anti-American is treason.

With some strong military leadership, we’d have peace and a democratic regime in Iraq. Gas would be $1.50 per gallon.

sd

May 27th, 2009
9:00 am

The country seems to be a cult of personality. It seems that if Kim Jong Il was “removed” that North Korea would be a lot better off. The United Nations should act to “remove” him.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:02 am

Seriously folks, what can we do about it? What rule in the rule book says that North Korea can’t have nuclear weapons while other countries can? And why is the initial reaction to nuclear tests that they are automatically going to start blowing people up?

RW-(the original)

May 27th, 2009
9:02 am

One last thing so as to get back on topic. North Korea has announced they will no longer be bound by the truce of 1953. Technically I guess we’re back at war with them. Better get the UN to write an even more strongly worded letter.

Later kidz!

Brian

May 27th, 2009
9:03 am

All we’ve got to do is hang on until Dec.21, 2012, then it won’t matter anyway.(LOL) By that time Iran will probably have the bomb too.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:05 am

I still think George American is a parody poster like Redneck Convert.

Donovan

May 27th, 2009
9:06 am

“We have to be ready for military action”. Listen to our little chicken hawk liberal who is now fighting right along side of Obama in the valleys of Afghanistan. Boy, I feel safer now that the Dems are forming a convenient backbone. Why doesn’t the new Sec. of State give another autographed basketball to Kim so as to cement our good relations and understanding of the problem?

mike

May 27th, 2009
9:06 am

jewcowboy –

“Like we did with Iraq?”

Say what you want about Iraq, but nobody is worried that they will be producing WMD. That particular problem has been solved.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:06 am

sd,

“The United Nations should act to “remove” him” Why?

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
9:09 am

Mike: “That particular problem has been solved”

And best of all, it wasn’t even a problem in the first place! Now. THAT’s a good use of a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.

mike

May 27th, 2009
9:10 am

Bosch –

“And why is the initial reaction to nuclear tests that they are automatically going to start blowing people up?”

The concern is not so much that they themselves will use them, but that they will sell them to folks who would. Let’s not forget that this is a country that is deeply impoverished and has used several unpopular tactics to raise money, from missile proliferation to counterfeiting. This fear is not exclusive to right wing nuts. It is pretty much the consensus of the foreign policy establishment.

Fly-On-The-Wall

May 27th, 2009
9:11 am

George American,

You can’t have it both ways when you state that Democrats and surrender monkeys caused a lack of support for the Iraq War and then point out that Democrats voted for that same war. Those brave Democrats only did their patriotic duty in pointing out the lack of support the Bush Administration gave our brave soldiers. That is something you cannot deny happened – lack of armored Hummvees, lack of body armor, faulty electrical installations, corruption of suppliers who had no-bid contracts. And this is the short list.

Are you saying we don’t have a democratic regime in Iraq now? Then you disagree with Bush, Cheney, and all of their administration?

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:12 am

mike,

Sorry, but I don’t buy that paranoid argument of “OMG, the bad guys are gonna get ‘em and blow us all up.”

Please. Only in the movies.

mike

May 27th, 2009
9:12 am

Copyleft –

“And best of all, it wasn’t even a problem in the first place! Now. THAT’s a good use of a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives.”

Yawn. Actually the fact that we didn’t know if he had an active program was a problem, but hey we all know where we stand on that issue and it wasn’t the point I was raising.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:14 am

Maybe we should call James Bond or send in Jack Bauer – they could fix it in a jiffy. Anyone have their numbers?

mike

May 27th, 2009
9:14 am

Bosch –

“Please. Only in the movies.”

You would think so, but there is a verifiable history of NK selling missiles and let’s not forget that this is a regime that kidnapped a famous Japanese director to make movies for them. That’s the kind of thing that only happens in movies…and in NK.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:15 am

BTW, great Luckovich cartoon today – I wonder if Omar is Rush’s tailor! BWA!!!!!

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
9:15 am

From Kevin Drun

“Dan Drezner remarks on the DPRK’s recent nuclear test:

I think the Obama administration has come up with a novel way of dealing with the North Koreans — get everyone to talk about something else.

That is novel — at least compared to the nonsense normally spewed by the Bush administration every time Kim Jong-il decided to yank their chains. And in any case, if meaningless bluster isn’t your thing, there aren’t a whole lot of choices available:

The alternatives to the repeated short-term carrot strategy are even less appealing. There is no viable military option unless everyone is comfortable with the destruction of Seoul; there is no viable sanctions option unless China decides to cut off the energy tap, and they’ll only do this if they’re sure it won’t lead to a stream of North Korea refugees entering Manchuria.

In other words, there’s really not a lot we can do about this unless China, against all odds, (a) finally tires of Pyongyang’s antics, (b) beefs up its suprisingly porous border with North Korea, and (c) decides to cut off aid. There’s some evidence of (a), but not much for anything else.”

China is the key.

sd

May 27th, 2009
9:21 am

The people of North Korea have been told that Kim Jong Il’s birth was predicted by a swallow (a bird) and that upon his birth that a double rainbow filled the skies over the mountains. They are taught in schools from young ages about him and his father and how they are deities. The successor to Kim will be one of his three sons.

Seems to me that by pulling the mask off of the leader, that the people would see the facade. By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help. Perhaps the people would rise up and revolt if they knew there was a better choice.

jt

May 27th, 2009
9:25 am

“By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help.”

That sounds like a lesson about 25% of Americans need to learn.

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 27th, 2009
9:33 am

Seems to me that by pulling the mask off of the leader, that the people would see the facade. By exposing his lies to the people. By letting them know that relentless toil and extreme poverty for nothing but to pay homage to a fake deity is NOT the only choice in life, would help. Perhaps the people would rise up and revolt if they knew there was a better choice.

Lucky for us, Obozo is busy pulling off his own “mask.”

And for what is underneath of it, eewwww.

Redneck Convert

May 27th, 2009
9:34 am

Well, seems to me this N. Korea is getting too big for its britches. Dropping a few A-bombs on them would cut them down to size. And if the Chinese Commies don’t like it we got plenty more bombs where those come from. I’m too old for the draft so I reckon I can look at things in a diffrent way from these whipper-snappers on the blog.

Seems to me somebody could make a mint with bumper stickers and ribbons that say Bomb the N. Koreans. If they got them out just when the war started. Nothing wrong with a little Free Innerprize during a war.

Have a good day everybody.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:37 am

mike,

Oh no! They sold some missiles and kidnapped a movie director? Let’s get in the bunker holes now!!!

Big deal – we sell missiles all the time.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:41 am

Mrs. G.,

“China is the key.” Eggsactly. We can beat our chests all we want, but China has got to be the one to step in and goes “Hey boys, enough.”

Remember boys and girls, we ain’t “all that” anymore. We aren’t in much of a position to tell anyone what to do.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:42 am

And can anyone out there tell me why North Korea isn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons?

AmVet

May 27th, 2009
9:44 am

Six-party talks. Bilateral talks. Red China with its most favored nation status.

Maybe Michael Reagan can follow in his daddy’s footsteps and single-handedly bring down the Yellow menace…

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 27th, 2009
9:49 am

This is all Harry Truman’s fault! If he would have let General McC Nuke the Chinese back across the Yaloo, no North Korea.

Liberals messing up American interests for at least 43 years!

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 27th, 2009
9:50 am

Bosch, it’s simple really..they can’t have nukes because you are a dumbass.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
9:50 am

That makes it a problem to be managed, not solved.

Oh, for politicians with the backbone to say that out loud.

Paul

May 27th, 2009
9:53 am

Jay

[[And we have to be prepared for the day when it all falls apart.]]

That’s pretty chilling. Vince Flynn’s latest novel dealt with just that scenario. I hope fiction does not become fact. BTW – S Korea’s capital, Seoul, is about 30 miles south of the demilitarized zone separating it from N Korea. In the event of a conflict it’d be reduced to rubble quite quickly. And I don’t think the N Koreans would worry about civilian collateral damage as we do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

CopyLeft 8:41

That was pretty funny. Ridicule the ‘neocons’ (are they representative of any significant population?) for having a one-track mind, then ask if anyone has any good ideas on what to do.

Ummm, Democrats have the Executive and Legislative. Shouldn’t they by now have put something forward that can be discussed? Well, they have. My last read of the LA Times said SecState Clinton a few days back had blown off any thought of engagement with the N Koreans. I rather expected those who blasted Pres Bush for his six-party strategy to come unglued. They didn’t. I understand Pres Obama wants to work through the UN and engage China (as did Bush) – all that’s nice, but as Jay says, then what?

Oh, before I forget – LA Times point was that N Korea did what they did because they felt roundly IGNORED by the Obama Administration. So it would appear the Obama Administration bears some responsibility for this deteriorating situation, doesn’t it?

Jewcowboy 8:49

[[Put an embargo on big gold sunglasses and they will crumble.]]

The policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations was to continue food aid so millions wouldn’t starve. Do you really think the Obama Administration will accept videos of millions starving when it is in its power to stop the suffering?

RW-(the original) 8:55

[[I’m really starting to rethink my entire position]]

I haven’t heard that phrase on this board very often!

Mrs. Godzilla 9:15

The source cited: “That is novel — at least compared to the nonsense normally spewed by the Bush administration every time Kim Jong-il decided to yank their chains. And in any case, if meaningless bluster isn’t your thing, there aren’t a whole lot of choices available:”

Cute rhetoric predictably at odds with the record. So Drezner’s idea is to not engage in discussions, not have multiparty talks (involve China and Russia) and not continue humanitarian aid, as the Bush Administration did?

This is a good idea? Wait: it’s meant to only sound good in a partisan kind of way, right?

Kamchak

May 27th, 2009
9:53 am

“And can anyone out there tell me why North Korea isn’t allowed to have nuclear weapons?”

Because they are godless communists lacking the restraint of those who worship Him. Either that, or they are Man U. fans deserving of nothing.

sd

May 27th, 2009
9:53 am

Seems like we’ve forgotten how to use propaganda to influence people. We should be dropping leaflets on those people that encourage them to rise up.

And in those Sharia Law countries where they execute a woman for showing too much ankle, we should be dropping a different leaflet on them. We should cover their cities in the nastiest pornography our great country has to offer. Seems to me that if pictures of naked orgies were ubiquitous in their countries, they’d have a little trouble keeping up with the oppression.

Paul

May 27th, 2009
9:57 am

sd

[[We should cover their cities in the nastiest pornography our great country has to offer. Seems to me that if pictures of naked orgies were ubiquitous in their countries, they’d have a little trouble keeping up with the oppression.]]

We already do – via the Internet. The result has been to increase the oppression. I mean, the enforcement of Islamic Truth and Purity.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
9:58 am

Kamchak,

“Because they are godless communists lacking the restraint of those who worship Him”

Hahahahaha! Even though, uh, yeah, we’re the only one’s who have ever used one.

“Either that, or they are Man U. fans deserving of nothing”

Better idea.

Seriously, why can’t they have them? I mean, realy, what can we do about it? Nothing, except actually go to war with them, and I don’t think that’s gonna happen.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:01 am

George American,

“The watered-down, 1/2-assed effort in Iraq was due to the congressional democrats and surrender monkeys lack of support for the military.”

Hmmm…and who was that Commander in Chief of military forces in 2003 when the invasion of Iraq took place? Take some responsibility, sheesh.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
10:01 am

Since I’m not all that interested in speculating what we should do to contain NK, WARNING an utterly off-topic comment WARNING.

If you want a bit of fun, and would like have a chance to be published in an actual book that’s to be printed and sold this weekend, check this out, and (maybe) submit a contribution by close-of-business today.

It’s a collection of submitted first-lines of imaginary sequels to famous books.

Here’s a sample:

Tom opened the white envelope, and stared at the row of zeros, his rheumy eyes adjusting to the bright light shining on the glossy paper, and he realized that he had nothing, nothing was left of the treasure, that old Judge Thatcher had invested that money with that sneaky-eyed fellow with the fancy apartment, the houses in Palm Beach and France, the thousand dollar suit, and now it was gone, all gone, and there was nothing to be done but tell Huck, tell him that they were done for, and were going back, back again to live with Aunt Polly, and to once more paint that awful fence.

—From Hannibal, Oh Hannibal — Life on the Mississippi (sequel to Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain)

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
10:01 am

“Seriously, why can’t they have them?”

Because then the world would have to treat them as equals? Is the world ready for that? We can’t even bear the thought of treating the Iranians as equals, let alone the North Koreans.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
10:05 am

Doggone/GA

“Because then the world would have to treat them as equals?”

Well, technically, aren’t they?

Normal

May 27th, 2009
10:06 am

Anybody remember back in ‘69 when they shot up and captured the
U.S.S. Liberty? Our military option was “NO Option At All”. It
has been that way ever since. But this time I think NK screwed up
by negating the armistice of 1953. In doing that, they have reopened
the war. I think that a full scale Naval embargo, such as was done to
Cuba in ‘62 is the answer. They said that would be considered an act
of war but, as I said, by negating the armistice, they have already declared war. This will take away any questions of legalities.
Stop every ship coming and going for a few months and
see if they aren’t more prone to reason.
The other side to this is they might try to invade SK, but if they do,
our Naval air forces are in place and would make an invasion a difficult
thing to do and as in the first Korean war, would give us time to mobilize.
The only other option is to ignore them. Just let them rant like
spoiled children until they exaust themselves.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:07 am

mike,

“Say what you want about Iraq, but nobody is worried that they will be producing WMD. That particular problem has been solved.”

Just suicide bomber and next generation jihadists.

Kamchak

May 27th, 2009
10:09 am

Bosch

Well—the phrase “preemptive strike” immediately leaps to mind. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

or

If we do nothing it will have a “domino effect in the region.” Hmmm… also sounds vaguely familiar.

I think Mrs. G said it: China is the key. I’m not sure what the U.S. can do without looking like we are trying another attempt at nation destruction/rebuilding.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:10 am

“Maybe we should call James Bond or send in Jack Bauer – they could fix it in a jiffy. Anyone have their numbers?”

Does anyone else but me think that Jack Bauer has helped killed any analytical and rational thinking in this country?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 27th, 2009
10:12 am

Paul

read the Drum article closer, he tossed out the Drezner quote as a gotcha….Drum and Drezner are miles apart idealogically. you are not normally so easily confused. focus on Drum dear heart….that’s the key to the post.

scratching and swaggergering will not resolve the north korea situation.
China is the key.

(and do you really think there has been no meaningless bluster aimed at lil’ kim? really?)

“To Kim Jong-Il, let me say this,” Bush said. “Abandon your nuclear program at once, or you will face the full fury of the United States of America’s harshest rhetoric.”

Scooter

May 27th, 2009
10:12 am

I may have a good idea here. Let’s try allowing the rest of the world to try and solve the rest of the worlds’s problems for a “change”!

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:13 am

Paul,

“The policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations was to continue food aid so millions wouldn’t starve. Do you really think the Obama Administration will accept videos of millions starving when it is in its power to stop the suffering?”

I didn’t say anything about food, I said big gold sunglasses. Jong wouldn’t last a day without his big gold tacky sunglasses. And whatever it is that makes his hat stand up. Starch? Embargo that as well. He’d crumble in a month.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
10:13 am

You can understand why they might be paranoid with nearly 20,000 U.S. troops stationed on its border. How much more suffering can its citizenry take before they revolt? We need to try to continue to help them with food and other necessities while working to contain and reform their government. It would seem that wasting resources while the people starve would be assuring regime change.

If we aren’t willing to dismantle and destroy our nuclear weapons, and we aren’t, then how can we expect others not to want to acquire them?

Where’s the covert CIA when you need it? Just kidding!

Copyleft

May 27th, 2009
10:16 am

Sounds good to me, Scooter!

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
10:16 am

Does anyone else but me think that Jack Bauer has helped killed any analytical and rational thinking in this country?

Jack’s like God, man. If he didn’t exist we’d have to create him.

Paul

May 27th, 2009
10:20 am

Bosch

Real briefly, as you’ve asked before. Just some thoughts off the top of my head (translation for the rest of you: please don’t ask for cites from national security documents, historians or anything like that – this is simply a quick response).

We developed nukes as we were involved in a total war (surrender without condition) with a strong enemy (Germany) who also had a development program. We employed them to force a surrender (from the Japanese, after the Germans and Italians had surrendered). Russia (our WWII allies, then our enemies) developed them to counter us. France? I don’t think they really wanted to trust their security to us so soon after a world war. England? Our Cold War ally countering the Soviets – the Brits couldn’t match them conventionally – heck, it’s doubtful all of NATO could. Israel? Surrounded by millions of hostiles who attempted their destruction? They weren’t about to risk Holocaust II. And this is critical – they were not developed as first-strike weapons. China? It went hand in hand with the definition of a superpower – and, they considered war with the US AND the USSR as not unlikely. 1969 – they came close with the USSR. India and Pakistan? Just another step in the historical enmity between two countries with large populations, conventional militaries and religious enmity.

During all this time the NATO allies and Russia (as well as China) operated under the assumptions of “one use of these weapons will be met with a //massive// response by those attacked.” Forget proportionality. The response would be massive. There was also the assumption that the devastation would hit both sides, hence the term “Mutual Assured Destruction” (or MAD for short). And through it all there was a sense that the leaders of the US, China, USSR, France, England etc were rational. And a defensive mindset in their use was a common thread.

But N Korea? Iran? Rationality, as we have seen, is not a given. Defense? Not a huge criteria, given their statements. Lack of first-strike intentions? Problematic. Willingness to use as just another weapon in the arsenal, as they doubt the willingness of their opponents to respond massively, not proportionally? That has to be considered.

So that is why we have them and we don’t want them to. Sure, there are holes, there are exceptions, there are differing perceptions of the perceptions of our enemies. But that’s the CliffsNotes version of the Reader’s Digest condensed version. As I see it.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
10:21 am

Scooter

May 27th, 2009
10:12 am

If Stalin hadn’t died, this problem would have been resolved 55 years ago.

I like your premise, but this isn’t one of those times.

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
10:21 am

“Well, technically, aren’t they?”

The operative word was TREAT. The would would have to TREAT them as equals, instead of treating them like children.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 27th, 2009
10:22 am

In case you failed to notice, War is still declared on the Korean Pennisula. Operations have ceased due to an Armistice. Please tell me you all remember this?

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
10:23 am

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
10:21 am

Desperate, dangerous children!

But then, maybe it’s just a lot of bluster.

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
10:24 am

“Please tell me you all remember this?”

Well, *I* do…and as they have already repudiated the 1953 agreement, we ARE back in a state of active war. How we choose to act on that fact is another matter.

Bud Wiser

May 27th, 2009
10:26 am

Who says or actually believes that they are making them for themselves? What do you think they’re going to do, threaten the S. Koreans and Japanese for some silk shirts and radios?

They can sell them to the highest bidders, probably some lunatic mad dog terrorists that Obowo and the democrats keep chasing down with biscuits and blankets, then either:

a: deliver a strike on Israel;

b: pop one off in NY or DC;

c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.

Solution?

Other than have someone take out Il, I don’t know at the moment. Don’t know if that will work either. Give them what they want (food, medicines, technology -oops, Clinton did that already) and they will be knocking louder at the door next time.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:26 am

“Jack’s like God, man. If he didn’t exist we’d have to create him.”

Never watched it, never will.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:28 am

“a: deliver a strike on Israel;

b: pop one off in NY or DC;

c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.”

Though it seems someone has been watching “24″ a little too much.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
10:29 am

RW done wrote:

I’m really starting to rethink my entire position on campaign finance, assuming we’ll still have elections in the future.

While I’ve no idea where RW is headed with his re-thinking, I will humbly submit that it it only when you’ve reached the point where one is wondering out loud whether “we’ll still have elections in the future,” that one starts to contemplate this issue seriously.

Of course RW’s linkee is to some rather hilarious fever-swampy right wing blog, but if that’s what it takes to get a guy to re-think an established position, it can’t be all bad.

AmVet

May 27th, 2009
10:30 am

Too bad George and Dick ran out of time. Were they still calling the shots, they might be telling us right now, how we will be greeted as liberators with flowers and Korean candy.

And the slobbering neo-conned and chickenhawks would be wailing for more war…

I had to Google it to remember his name, and notwithstanding that Keifer Sutherland has been a goob since the early 80’s (A Few Good Men and Stand By Me, and a whole boatload of crappola), who watches this stuff?

Seriously.

I gave up on tard prime time TV and tard movies (The PC police are coming for me!) in the early seventies.

Paul

May 27th, 2009
10:31 am

Mrs. Godzilla

Not confused – just scanned your post for highlights. Just got back from a trip, remember? Unwinding with this while I sort out the work pileup.

Point of interest: China engagement was part and parcel of the Bush approach. So to hear now the ‘China is key’ idea is , well, yeah…. But to have an impact it has to be at a time when China sees it in their national interest. Saying ‘hey China, this is really important to us. Will you do such and such, even if it causes problems for you? It’d sure make life easier for us” doesn’t work all that well.

And just watch: some of Obama’s rhetoric towards N Korea will be just as ‘provocative’ as anything Bush said.

Bush threatened ‘our harsh rhetoric’ according to your quote. Obama threatened “If it does not (behave responsibly) then it can expect only renewed isolation.” Renewed isolation. Isolation. Freezing out diplomatically. No cultural or scientific exchanges. No trade. No aid, including food.

Leading to increased sense of isolation, oppression, threatening, mass starvation and internal pressure leading to chaos.

Which president offered the inflammatory remarks, hmmm?

jewcowboy 10:13

I know you didn’t suggest that – I should’ve been clearer I was using the remark as a jumping-off point for where certain policies could lead.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
10:32 am

Never watched it, never will.

Nor have I, save for the obnoxious commercials one has to endure as a price for following the Simpsons or major league baseball.

I have been tempted more recently to see what kind of role they had for Janeane Garofolo, though.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:33 am

AmVet,

“who watches this stuff?”

Evidently many on this blog. Some seem to think it’s reality programming.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:36 am

DB, Gwinnettian,

“save for the obnoxious commercials one has to endure as a price for following the Simpsons or major league baseball.”

Quite so.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:38 am

“And the slobbering neo-conned and chickenhawks would be wailing for more war…”

Would be? Have they ever stopped?

Paul

May 27th, 2009
10:38 am

jewcowboy 10:28

Who believes this stuff? Possibly OBL?

Possibly Pres Obama, given his remarks towards Iran?

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:40 am

“c: nuclear blackmail the entire planet with “we’ve got 1 and you’ll just have to wait and see where it arrives.”

Sorry, that is not Jack, that is Dr. Evil and Mini-Me.

getalife

May 27th, 2009
10:40 am

lil kim’s last stand and we should start talking to his son.

Show him how democracy pays well with corruption like in South Korea..

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
10:41 am

Bud Wiser

May 27th, 2009
10:26 am

As a last resort, the facilities could be destroyed. And I’m sure it would have China’s blessing, no matter what it might state publicly.

Normal

May 27th, 2009
10:42 am

TNGelding, your 10:13 post mentioned 20,000 American Troops at the
Korean DMZ. Actually the number is closer to 30,000+, but facing them
is 150,000+ NK Troops. Our boys would be overrun in a day, and the survivors would be doing a fighting retreat, stalling for time. If,
as I said in my earlier post, we had the Naval resources, i.e. Air
Craft Carriers, on station, I don’t think they would be so quick to act.
But the main point here is they do not feel intimidated by our troops
at all, believe it.

Cuz

May 27th, 2009
10:47 am

The missiles are just a distraction. The nukes involved are small in size. It appears that they are building small nukes to sell to the highest bidding terrorist organization. Coming to a city near you, a pretty mushroom cloud. Actually, no telling who will get one first and where they will blow it up.

One answer, Japan announces they will join the nuclear club and China then may try to pull the reigns on the NK’s. But the horse may have already left the barn.

At least the UN will strongly condemn North Korea. Why do we belong to this group? They speak loudly with no actions. Rwanda and Darfur ring a bell? And it was NATO not the UN that stopped the killing in the Balkans.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Left and Right could get together on this one. We are too busy fighting among ourselves to worry about North Korea and Iran getting nuclear capabilities.

Scooter

May 27th, 2009
10:48 am

TnGelding @ 10:21 am

I guess you are right. It would be putting your head in sand.
I do believe it’s an option we rarely try though.

Cuz

May 27th, 2009
10:51 am

You mean 24 is not a reality show? Guess I will go back to watching Daisy de la Hoya.

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
10:52 am

“Japan announces they will join the nuclear club”

I don’t think that’s an option. Japan’s constitution does not allow them to have offfensive armies or weapons, only defensive. Nuclear weapons are not defensive.

jewcowboy

May 27th, 2009
10:52 am

I think lovelyliz at 8.38 hit the nail on the head. This is about attention seeking, foreign aid and seeking legitimization. North Korea may bluster on, but they will ultimately do nothing that China does not want them to do. And China wants nothing to slow down their economy. If it came down to N. Korea or China’s economy, guess where 2.3 million Chinese troops will be marching.

I have 2 dogs, one weighs 8 lbs and one weighs 40 lbs. The small one barks at every thing that goes by, while the bigger one just watches. When the small one tries to attack something, the bigger one just barks twice and the smaller one stops and runs back to the big one with its tail between its legs.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
10:56 am

Normal

May 27th, 2009
10:42 am

Sorry, I was a little late to the psrty. Some of the troops are stationed further south. But I think they realize we have enough air power in the area that they wouldn’t cross the border, but apparently you disagree.

It’s just another one of the things that should have been resolved decades ago, but we’re stuck in an us against them mentality. We’ve got to learn that Mother Earth only has so many resources and we must learn to conserve and share them.

Maybe we should get serious about the United Nations Disarmament Commission?

Cuz

May 27th, 2009
10:58 am

Yep, Doggone, Japan would have to change their constitution. More or less wishful thinking as I don’t think the country hit by nukes will suddenly embrace them.

Great analogy jewcowboy.

TnGelding

May 27th, 2009
11:01 am

Party, party, party. But I guess that’s what we’ve been doing for too long.

UN commission:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/DisarmamentCommission/UNDiscom.shtml

Doggone/GA

May 27th, 2009
11:01 am

“Yep, Doggone, Japan would have to change their constitution.”

Actually, I don’t think they can do that either. The “defensive only” was a condition imposed on them when they surrendered to end WW2.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
11:03 am

DB and jewcowboy,

I started watching it this season. For some unknown reason. I have no explanation except it just happened. Yes, it’s just as you’d imagine – Jack Bauer is some kind of super agent (think James Bond on cocaine) that has more things happen to him in a 24 hour period than the entire US military or every police force in the U.S. sees in 10 years. AND, he kicks some terrorist booty as a hobby.

Bosch

May 27th, 2009
11:04 am

Paul and his “short” answers – :roll:

Paul

May 27th, 2009
11:07 am

Bosch and his ’simple’ questions. :-)

georgian by birth floridian because I'm lucky

May 27th, 2009
11:07 am

I have seen that there are those on here who think that there is not a threat at most times. That is strange since there has been a bomb at a starbucks and did we all already forget the planned bombings of jewish places of worship in New York State?

What is it you all think the reason that AQ is trying to basically take over Pakistan? It would not make vaccation rentals so I doubt development is their goal?

I have only seen 1 James Bond movie and watched about 10 min. of 24 way back when but was not interested. So could one of you who have been telling others that this is not 24 or all of that, as if any of you know what others are truely thinking, why it is I have formed these opinions?

I do not think that there are briefcase nukes everyday, however I think with the state of the world and a professed goal of ELIMINATING all who are not in line with their values, these groups are dangerous. What is to stop a poor starving nation from selling a nuke warhead, or any other type of information to a known terrorist organization?

Very odd that in less than 8 years there are those of us who act like we are invincable or that it just couldn’t happen? It seems to me that those who think it can’t happen are in way more of a fantasy world than Jack B.

Normal

May 27th, 2009
11:10 am

Tngelding,
I don’t believe they would cross the border, because I truly believe
that if they played that last card, all would be lost for them. I also
believe that somewhere in the NK there are cooler heads than that.
I’m a poker player and my gut feeling is that it is all a big bluff,
but will take guts to just let them bluster and bellow. They will toe
up right to the line, but they won’t cross it. They just don’t have
the cards. If I was President Obama, I would say “North Korea?”, “north
Korea, who?”, and walk on.

Sally Mae-B

May 27th, 2009
11:15 am

I finished reading a few of the posts here before I got sick to my stomach.Are the “treehuggers” that “puss-a-fied”? The world has tried to deal with N.Korea in a humane fashion for 3 presidents now without success. The only thing that has been accomplished is they’re ability to accelerate their nuke program. I know this might ruffle a few feathers,but possibly a few strategic air strikes might be in order. Or maybe Obama can go to N.Korea, dress up in yung-kin-doo’s official garb(including sunglasses) and do his bow/apologize routine and all will be ok. Or as I read earlier by at least one genius “no rule against them having nukes”,let them do what they will and hope for the best.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
11:18 am

there are those of us who act like we are invincable or that it just couldn’t happen?

Sorry to pick a sentence frag seemingly at random, but I really must ask–who are these people posting here you speak of?

Obviously the worst-case scenarios–the crazy religious fundamentalist blowing up a city for God with a bomb supplied by the crazy NK, paid for with our heroin money perhaps?–is something that could happen. I don’t think anyone denies that. If someone does I’m sure he/she will disavow me of this notion shortly.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 27th, 2009
11:20 am

.Are the “treehuggers” that “puss-a-fied”?

Yes. And they want your son to wear a dress and have forced gay abortions.