Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_blank">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s tories/K/KOREAS_NUCLEAR?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT</a> >>North Korea said Monday it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapons test. The country's official Korean Central News Agency said the test was performed and there was no radioactive leakage from the site.<<
Originally Posted By ecdc "So what now?" Invade China! They haven't attacked us but they do kinda look like the North Koreans. That policy has worked so far. Err...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ asiapcf/10/09/korea.nuclear.test/index.html</a> From the link: "China, a close ally of North Korea, denounced the claimed test as "brazen" and South Korea said it would respond "sternly." "A senior U.S. official said China was given a 20-minute warning ahead of the test and in turn passed the information along to the United States, Japan and South Korea." "China on Monday demanded Pyongyang stop any action that would worsen the situation, Reuters news service reports. "The DPRK has ignored the widespread opposition of the international community and conducted a nuclear test brazenly on October 9," China's Foreign Ministry said in a statement on its Web site. "The Chinese government is firmly opposed to this," the statement said. In Tokyo, the prime minister's office said Japan had established a task force to address the situation. Chief government spokesman Yasuhisa Shiozaki said if a nuclear test was confirmed, Japan would "strongly protest" it." ------------------------------------ So North Korea has succeeded in angering a close ally and several other countries that didn't trust it in the first place. I hope the U.S. lets the region plice itself, i.e. let China and Japan handle it, before we do anything rash.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, Jon, we're a little busy at the moment protecting our oil interests... NK doesn't factor in. Plus they're not weak enough to bully. Guess they can do what they want.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It amuses me that the same people who demand that the United States not allow the U.N. to dictate its foreign policy are the same folks now demanding that the U.N. take strong action against North Korea. If we are not willing to abide by the wishes of the U.N., why the heck should the North Koreans?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Invade China! They haven't attacked us but they do kinda look like the North Koreans. That policy has worked so far. Err...<< This hasn't remotely been our policy. If China had routinely issued threats against its neighbors, America, and the rest of the world; if China's leader had proven aggressive in the past; if China had been evading its responsibilities to declare its weapons capabilities, this analogy (you were talking about Iraq, I trust) would make at least a little bit of sense. But since none of this is the case, the argument is specious.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"The Chinese government is firmly opposed to this," the statement said< we'll see just how opposed in the next 48 hours, my guess is this is only words from China. Don't think Iran isn't watching what if anything the world community will do, with extreme interest. Russia has no ties to North Korea so they will be Ok with this, the French will be angry ( for a day ) - Japan is scared to death and China who sends North Korea 1/2 their food and supplies will back away, fearing if the little dictator is overthrown they could get a democracy on their border, and they will not have that either. Also as a side light, our troop strength ( or lack thereof of available) already being talked about.... an issue here would allow for a shifting of troops from Iraq....or else we will be hearing about a 'draft' soon again...and definitely before the '08 elections. Just my opinion
Originally Posted By ecdc "This hasn't remotely been our policy. If China had routinely issued threats against its neighbors, America, and the rest of the world; if China's leader had proven aggressive in the past; if China had been evading its responsibilities to declare its weapons capabilities, this analogy (you were talking about Iraq, I trust) would make at least a little bit of sense. But since none of this is the case, the argument is specious." While all are fair points, it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, Iraq never attacked us and was not a threat to us. If we're in the business of policing every country that threatens its neighbors, we better get to work fast because there's plenty of those. And given the administrations past blundering and complete incompetence, it's not at all a stretch to wonder how screwed up their response to this latest development might be.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<It amuses me that the same people who demand that the United States not allow the U.N. to dictate its foreign policy are the same folks now demanding that the U.N. take strong action against North Korea.>> Raises hand. I can answer that question. Perhaps the main reason is that the Korean War never really actually ended. <<Growing tensions between the governments in the north and south and border skirmishes eventually led to a civil war called the Korean War. On June 25, 1950 the (North) Korean People's Army attacked across the 38th Parallel in a move to reunify the peninsula under their political system. The war continued until July 27, 1953, when the United Nations Command, the Korean People's Army, and the Chinese People's Volunteers signed the Korean War Armistice Agreement. The DMZ has separated the North and South ever since.>> This is where you get the United Nations involvement. If the UN participated in the armistice then I think anyone could successfull argue that the UN should participate in any "Peace Talks" occuring today. <<If we are not willing to abide by the wishes of the U.N.>> You must referring to the 17 UN resolutions that ALL of the countries in the UN Security Counsel ( with the exception of Great Britan and the US ) refused to enforce. I have a question, just what is a legal document coming out of the UN actually worth? Since no one except the US, Brittan and Australia are willing to enforce it anyway. Need further proof? How many countries represented in the UN agreed to the peace according asking Israel to pull out of Lebonan and then refused to actaully send troops? Oh and if history serves me right, wasn't the UN suppose to make sure that Hammas was disbanded two decades ago? The UN is so up on everything <sarcasm>. Heck NO ONE is abiding by the Kyoto Treaty and only the US and Australia refused to sign that document.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<<While all are fair points, it doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, Iraq never attacked us and was not a threat to us. If we're in the business of policing every country that threatens its neighbors, we better get to work fast because there's plenty of those.>>> Here we go again! Oh course there WERE those 17 UN resolutions. But I suppose UN resolutions mean nothing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I have a question, just what is a legal document coming out of the UN actually worth? Since no one except the US, Brittan and Australia are willing to enforce it anyway.>> I agree. So why even look to the U.N. to do anything? We know the U.N. is a paper tiger so why bother?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Did I mention that Saddam was shooting at our jets on a daily basis for Oh... I would say a few years at least. While our jets were "policing" those very UN resolutions you quickly dismiss.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I'm trying to understand the Liberals here who in my opinion encourage selective UN resolution enforcement. From what I can gleam the "Liberals" are saying that the US must abide by UN resolutions but everyone else, especially violent dictatorships or violent regimes can do whatever they want, however they want, anytime they want. GOT IT!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<GOT IT!>> No, you certainly don’t. What I want is consistency. Either the U.N. and its resolutions are important or they are not. Some conservatives seem to want to ignore them when they go against us but still push for them when another country does something we don’t like. As for the 178 U.N. resolutions, they WERE being enforced. Strong sanctions that drastically reduced Iraq’s standard of living were in place and the U.S. was making daily flights to enforce the no-fly zone. The resolutions were being enforced and Saddam Hussein had been contained. The resolutions DID NOT authorize invasion of the country. The administrations used those resolutions to support what they did, but it is very clear the U.N. DID NOT support the invasion. So like I say… All I want is consistency. Do we ignore the U.N or not ignore the U.N.? I’m willing to go either way as long as we are consistent.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<As for the 178 U.N. resolutions, they WERE being enforced.>> Saddam threw out the UN inspectors which was in direct violation of the 17 UN resolutions. Saddam shot daily at our jets, which was in direct violation of the UN resolutions. EVERYONE including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton... etc.. thought that Saddam had WDMs. Heck Hillary still supports our involvement in Iraq. Saddam had WDMs, used WDMs and attacked two of his neighbors. <<Strong sanctions that drastically reduced Iraq’s standard of living were in place>> YOu mean the UN's palaces for oil program. LOL, you have to be kidding. Meanwhile Saddam is buying stock in Car and Driver and Vogue magazines. Sure Iraqes stave while Saddam boozes up and makes porn movies. <<The resolutions were being enforced and Saddam Hussein had been contained.>> No they weren't and Saddam was providing financial gain to people committing terrorism in Israel. While allowing known terrorist to travel freely within Iraq borders. <<The resolutions DID NOT authorize invasion of the country.>> Each one of those resolutions authorized military action to be taken upon Saddam. <<but it is very clear the U.N. DID NOT support the invasion.>> That is correct. When push came to shove the "other" members of the UN secuirty counsel decided to appease Saddam. So the US backed by other nations decided to take military action. I'm also looking for consistency. I'm just not looking for guidance from Muslim appeasers like France, Germany and Russia for guidance.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm just not looking for guidance from Muslim appeasers like France, Germany and Russia for guidance.>> So say the U.N. is worthless and be done with it.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I think the US should abandon the UN. I think the US should call for a new UN where the only countries that can participate are those that have a democratically elected government.
