North Korea Missle vs. Iraq

[Blackadar]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc...ile/index.html

Just a question.

Does anyone else see how two-faced we are when it comes to dealing with Iraq?

North Korea is supposed to be part of the "axis of evil". They launch a missle into the ocean and we say it's "fairly innocuous" and "not surprising". If Iraq launched one into the Persian Gulf, we'd be using that as a pretext for war and would start bombing immediately. What's the difference?

[Bee]

North Korea has nukes and appears to be willing to use them.

[Malificent]

We can only be in one place at once? We decided to deal with Iraq - the diplomacy is moving, the troops are in place, etc, etc. If you start antagonizing North Korea right now, you put yourself in an ugly position. If you wait until after you're done with Iraq, then you have a better shot at handling the situation.

On top of that, North Korea has Japan, and to a lesser extent, China, to put pressure on them. Iraq has nobody like that.

[Fritz]

two faced is an interesting selection of words.

[Alf]

Irak has oil whereas North Korea only has granite

[Bee]

Originally posted by Alf
Irak has oil whereas North Korea only has granite

The French seem to know this very well.

[The Afoci]

Blackadar, you are right, I think we should wait for Iraq to get its weapons before we put our soldiers in harms way. Right now the blood thirsty Bush won't kill nearly as many US soldier if Iraq doesn't have nukes. What are we thinking?

[Bee]

The best I can tell, our response to the firing of the missile was to send North Korea more food...

[Daimyo]

Am I correct to assume, if we were treating South Korea as we are treating Iraq, you would still be complaining just as much?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
The best I can tell, our response to the firing of the missile was to send North Korea more food...

I think it was poisoned.

Tarkus

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Tarkus
I think it was poisoned.

Tarkus

That would be the dirtiest trick in the history of foreign affairs.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sachmo71
That would be the dirtiest trick in the history of foreign affairs.

the whole history?

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Fritz
the whole history?

I do believe so. Can you think of a dirtier trick that I am missing? I'll bet I'm missing something.

[Fritz]

I probably could, but I was just giving you a playfull jab.

*jab*

[sachmo71]

Awww...ok.

[Watches interesting discussion run back into it's hole]
[Sees John Gault sadly shake his head and turn away]

I tried John! I really did!

[Bee]

That Trojan Horse thing was a nasty trick

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Malificent
We can only be in one place at once? We decided to deal with Iraq - the diplomacy is moving, the troops are in place, etc, etc. If you start antagonizing North Korea right now, you put yourself in an ugly position. If you wait until after you're done with Iraq, then you have a better shot at handling the situation.

On top of that, North Korea has Japan, and to a lesser extent, China, to put pressure on them. Iraq has nobody like that.

Actually, NK is pissed off because Bush put them in the axis of evil and said we wouldn't upold the treaty Clinton signed with them to keep them at bay a few years back. I'm pretty sure we antagonized them already, hence why they're firing missiles into the sea.

Oh, and we agreed with Japan that any missile firing would have consequences. Well, they did, and we looked the other way. So now we pissed Japan off too. And China couldn't give a fuck about NK, NK isn't dumb enough to attack them.

[clintl]

Originally posted by sachmo71
I do believe so. Can you think of a dirtier trick that I am missing? I'll bet I'm missing something.

Giving disease-infested blankets to the Indians was on about the same level.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by clintl
Giving disease-infested blankets to the Indians was on about the same level.

Oh yeah. Boy, that what a bunch of jerks we are!

[Fritz]

sachmo - I am being pulled by two forces. One is John Galt's call for better discussion, the other is Senator's observation that I am too confrontational (my term) lately.

[QuikSand]

I wonder if the two countries' recent actions might have anything to do with the differential treatment. As best I can recall, Iraq (under the current leadership regime) invaded a sovereign nation, and used chemical weapons (and perhaps worse) on both another country (Iran) and on factions within its borders (the Kurdish minority). I don't think that North Korea has actually taken aggressive and hostile steps, other than to pull out of non-prolieration treaties. I am no foreign affaits expert, though.

Still, if true, tha woudl seem to justify a differential treatment of the two countries. Just because our president announced the two on a short list of "evil" countries doesn't necessarily mean that we ignore every other factor in diplomacy and international relations, and simply place the three on the same plane.


This is not to say that I think what we're doing in either country is necessarily right nor wrong, but that the argument that we are somehow obliged to treat the two the same is a weak one, in my book.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I wonder if the two countries' recent actions might have anything to do with the differential treatment. As best I can recall, Iraq (under the current leadership regime) invaded a sovereign nation, and used chemical weapons (and perhaps worse) on both another country (Iran) and on factions within its borders (the Kurdish minority). I don't think that North Korea has actually taken aggressive and hostile steps, other than to pull out of non-prolieration treaties. I am no foreign affaits expert, though.

Still, if true, tha woudl seem to justify a differential treatment of the two countries. Just because our president announced the two on a short list of "evil" countries doesn't necessarily mean that we ignore every other factor in diplomacy and international relations, and simply place the three on the same plane.


This is not to say that I think what we're doing in either country is necessarily right nor wrong, but that the argument that we are somehow obliged to treat the two the same is a weak one, in my book.

I believe you are correct, sir, but Bush bashers are not good at using common sense.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I wonder if the two countries' recent actions might have anything to do with the differential treatment.

This is 1/2 the equasion. The other half has to do with thrid party actors.

In 90/91 our actions against Iraq would have been much different had the Soviet Union made it clear that they would defend their boy.

In the current situation with NK, we must be concerned about relations with China. Iraq has no relationships of such stature that we need to address. This is not to say our current policy has no political costs, but they are ones the current administration feels comfortable (or capable of) managing.

[CamEdwards]

Well, the other thing to keep in mind is Iraq has been disobeying the UN resolutions for 12 years and 17 resolutions. The situation in Iraq has actually gone on a lot longer than the current Korean crisis.

We've tried sanctions with Iraq, to no avail. We've tried inspections, to no avail. Now Iraq says "screw you Hans Blix, we're not destroying these missiles even though you tell us to."

With N. Korea, we haven't even gotten to the point of UN sanctions. They just pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty and have just kicked out inspectors. If we're treating the two countries equally, you would expect military action in North Korea in about 12 years.

[JPhillips]

I agree that it is ludicrous to put a one size fits all stamp on foreign affairs. That being said, we are being dangerously negligent with NK. They probably have one or two nukes and with the restarting of their plutonium plant can have twenty by year end. This macho I won't talk to you crap has got to stop.

We have three options with NK. One, we go to war. Thousands of US soldiers die. Tens of thousands of SK soldiers die. Hundreds of thousands of civilians die. In the end we settle for a divided Korea again so as not to antagonize the Chinese.

Two, we do nothing and allow the NKs to build up a nuclear arsenal larger than any country other than the US, Russia and China. They probably sell these nukes to prop up their economy.

Three, we buy them off with food and oil. This isn't a great choice, but its the best available. Remember, the 1994 agreed framework did shut down NKs plutonium program. If we hadn't set that up, NK would have over 100 nukes by now. They certainly violated the spirit of the agreement by starting a uranium program, but they did not in fact violate the letter of their agreement.

IMO the Bush folks have really botched this. They talk tough, but they always let it go. They have no inclination to go to war and the NKs know it. Tough talk only works when you stand behind it. We have a policy of belligerence and neglect. In the long run NK is much more of a threat than Iraq, but it doesn't offer the possibilty of a clear victory, so Bush has put it on the back burner.

[JPhillips]

For some of you that don't think NK has done as much as Iraq.

1 Over they past five years millions have been reported to die due to starvation. The population has been reported to eat grass to survive.

2 They have concentration camps full of hundreds of thousands of political prisoners. These people are tortured and starved as punishment for not following the will of the Great Leader.

3 The current leader has admitted to capturing Japanese citizens and holding them captive. The plan was to turn them into spies for NK. Only a small portion of those captured have been returned to Japan.

4 The current leader is believed to have ordered assasinations of SK leaders during the 70s and 80s.

5 Officially we are still at war with NK. There was no official peace treaty, just an armistice. NK has said that they may decide to ignore the armistice in the near future.

6 A ship full of missiles was stopped on its way to Yemen. The same ship was filled with chemical weapon precursers when stopped recently.

7 The NKs have fired missiles over or in the direction of Japan several times over the past five years.

8 The NKs recently violated SK airspace with a combat fighter jet.

9 The NKs have moved machine guns into the demilitarized zone.

[rkmsuf]

The fact is that in the end China should step up and take care of NK for us. They are too depended upon US trade to risk any distubance in that. I'd guess that is a major part of the strategy to proceed diplomatically.

To not take action against Iraq at this point sends a very bad message to all the other cockoos out there and only encourages more terrorist activity. Agree or not but by our stance and words we must take action or face increased hostility. I wish more people would look at it that way and get behind a swift and decisive victory.

[TroyF]

JPhillips,

Yeah, they've been aggressive and yes they've been a horrific government. You don't need to list 9 items to prove that point.

Yet the history of actual aggressive nature outside the borders of the two countries is vastly different. As has been said repeatedly in this thread:

1) There are more controls over North Korea if they get tremendously stupid than the controls over Iraq in the Middle East. North Korea, while strong, couldn't defeat China or the U.S. in a war. They know it, we know it.

2) Korea has just recently kicked out inspectors. We've been at this with Iraq for 12 years.

Personally? I'm all for going to Korea, setting up an allience and taking out that government as well.

We have awhile before that takes place.

TroyF

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by JPhillips
For some of you that don't think NK has done as much as Iraq.

To clarify: are you saying you are in favor of military action against North Korea?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by TroyF
JPhillips,

Yeah, they've been aggressive and yes they've been a horrific government. You don't need to list 9 items to prove that point.

Yet the history of actual aggressive nature outside the borders of the two countries is vastly different. As has been said repeatedly in this thread:

1) There are more controls over North Korea if they get tremendously stupid than the controls over Iraq in the Middle East. North Korea, while strong, couldn't defeat China or the U.S. in a war. They know it, we know it.

2) Korea has just recently kicked out inspectors. We've been at this with Iraq for 12 years.

Personally? I'm all for going to Korea, setting up an allience and taking out that government as well.

We have awhile before that takes place.

TroyF

The Korean war started b/c NK attacked SK. Iraq has only abruptly attacked Kuwait (pretty sure). I think they only bombed Israel after we attacked. There they are equal.

1)Iraq couldn't defeat China or the U.S. in a war. You need to get a little deeper i hte statement to support it.

2)Iraq, I don't think, didn't kick out inspectors, they just stopped checking. NK actually made them leave. Who's at fault there?

I'm not saying that 2 different actions aren't necessitated. But calling Iraq a bigger danger to the US is crazy (not directed at TroyF). There are a million places terrorists can go for weapons, Iraq is a very small part of that equation.

But NK could easily hit Japan with a bomb, especially if they get 5-6 nukes, why wouldn't they unleash them that way? They don't care about killing their own people, I'd say there is just as big a risk of them going out in a blaze of glory as there is Saddam doing it.

But people don't want to look at that, because Bush backers don't use common sense.

[Bee]

While I agree that Iraq has shown more recent aggressive behavior to their neighbors, I think that North Korea is probably the more dangerous of the two currently. That's not to say Iraq is harmless, but IMO North Korea is more dangerous.

Another issue that seems to be getting lost in all the Iraq war talk is the fact that Iran is also kicking their nuke program into high gear. The US has a history of concentrating on a single threat while letting other threats go unchecked. I hope that doesn't end up happening again.

[rkmsuf]

But NK could easily hit Japan with a bomb, especially if they get 5-6 nukes, why wouldn't they unleash them that way? They don't care about killing their own people, I'd say there is just as big a risk of them going out in a blaze of glory as there is Saddam doing it.

But people don't want to look at that, because Bush backers don't use common sense.

I think you are missing the point. China will not ultimately let NK run amuck. To not pursue action at this point is not common sense and exposes American interests to even more terrorist activity.

This die was cast in the aftermath of 9/11 and through Iraq's continued non-cooperation. Everyone was tickled pink with the way this administration responded to the attack on WTC...

[Easy Mac]

But to pursue Iraq also exposes American interests to more terrorist attacks. Either way, war or not, this issue isn't black and white. Shit could hit the fan either way. Thats why I'm glad I don't have to make decisions and get to bitch about it on a messageboard.

[rkmsuf]

It's definately not black or white but I think to not back the words and strong stance we have is far worse since I think we'd all agree a decisive victory is likely...

Maybe it's just blind patriotism but I find it hard to fathom this is all due to Bush and Co. being war mongers and wanting to make up for dad's failures and stroke their own egos...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Alf
Irak has oil whereas North Korea only has granite

If it makes you feel better to simplify it this way, go ahead. But you're probably wrong, at least according to Salon (which is an extremely left wing publication, by the way).

If anyone's interesting in an examination of the oil connection (as opposed to just chanting "no blood for oil", which is fun if not productive), have a look: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...oil/print.html

(You'll need to sit through a quick ad to get the page to display.)

Some quotes:

"The U.S. oil companies have been conspicuously silent on the prospect of an Iraq war, but I would expect the oil men are saying, 'Hell no, don't go,'" says Lewis Snider, a professor at the Claremont Graduate University in California who often writes on how Middle East politics affects U.S. energy security. "I don't believe the present Bush administration is cranking up a war for oil. I think this war would be fought in spite of what's good for the [U.S.] oil industry."

The most important fact to remember about oil is that it is a stateless commodity; in a sense, it doesn't matter who holds the oilfields. If Satan himself controlled oil deposits, his product would enter the world market to be priced, bought and sold like anyone else's. By the same token, Bush could install his little brother Jeb as the Iraqi oil minister in a post-Saddam regime, and Exxon Mobil would still have to buy oil at world-market prices, and you'd have to buy it at the pump from Exxon Mobil.

The Europeans and Japanese, who are far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the Americans, understand this. One could argue that if regime change in Iraq would make the world's oil supplies cheaper and more reliable, they might be in favor of it. "[But] they're not clamoring for war, because they know that war does nothing to secure their oil," says Bernard Weinstein, director of the Center for Economic Development and Research and a professor of applied economics at the University of North Texas.

Basic summary... there may be plenty of reasons to oppose the coming war, but "no blood for oil" isn't a very good one.

[JPhillips]

China has just recently told us that we caused the problem so we can fix it. While they probably don't want a war in Korea I think they are perfectly happy with NK being such a nuisance. Remember this is the same country that held one of our planes hostage just a couple of years ago.

China also has less influence with NK than many people think. China and the Korean peninsula have a long dark history. The first real cooperation between the two came in the Korean War. NK is very suspicious of China's motives and will only listen to China up to a certain point. Remember China wasn't behind the Korean War, they only entered after McArthur got near the Yalu and ignored repeated warnings of Chinese intereference.

NK is by far a greater threat than Iraq. Everything that we are saying Iraq may do, NK is doing. NK has nukes and is making more. NK is exporting weapons to the highest bidder. NK is threatening developed countries like Japan, SK and Taiwan. NK can destroy the US high tech industry with one missle targeted at one industrial center in Taiwan where something like 90% of computer chips are made.

I don't think we should drop Iraq and rush to attack NK. In fact I am for negotiating our way out of the NK mess. As I said, buying them off is the best of bad options. What bothers me is our ridiculous belligerence regarding NK when we clearly have no intention of backing it up. We need a policy for NK that we are willing to back up. I think military action would be a mistake, but if that is going to be threatened we better be willing to back it up. As it stands NK has called our bluff and we are just standing on the sides going "Tsk, Tsk, Tsk."

[rkmsuf]

Too bad Dan Rather couldn't have taken care of business...

[Bee]

hmm...Every article I've read on NK has indicated that the US government wants to settle problems diplomatically. I haven't seen a single threat of military action from the US, only from NK. Not sure what "bluff" you are talking about...

[JPhillips]

Well, Bush called the NKs "evil" and "barbaric". He said he "loathed Kim Jong Il". We have said that we will not be blackmailed and will not speak to the NKs. We cut off talks between SK NK and us in 2001 because we didn't want to appease them. Several administration officials have commentedthat NK will be dealt with after Iraq.

Now I admit we haven't said, "We are going to attack," but we have made it clear that we see negotiating with NK a waste of time. Now that NK has upped the ante by being threatening and firing up the plutonium program we are now left without an answer. We implied that we wanted to aggressively contain NK, but now that push has come to shove we aren't doing anything. Hell, we barely even mention NK even though they have the potential to kill millions tomorrow if they choose.

[Bee]

My understanding has always been that we refuse to negotiate with North Korea "one on one" because the administration feels the issues with North Korea is an international issue, not an issue between the US and NK specifically.

It's interesting that the US gets criticized for going it alone in some instances and then gets criticized for trying to involve other countries in other instances. I'm not a fan of Bush and I don't agree with many of his methods or statements, but I also feel many that don't like him criticize his actions unjustly. I think many of the things he has done could have been handled better, but overall I think he has done an adequate job. I think he's been an average president put in a difficult situation, it would have been nice if we had had a great leader but there was none to be found in the last election.

[Easy Mac]

I think the main criticism is that he has no discernable foreign policy. He acted far too quickly on the axis of evil thing, and put himself in a hole from the start. Now he HAS to act in Iraq, and he HAS to do something in NK. He seems to bounce from whim to whim, and he leaves himself having to make a case on the fly, instead of planning it through from the beginning. Personally, I thought Gore was a dumbass too, and I was fairly appalled at the lack of good, intelligent candidates availabe for either party.

On another tangent, I'm flipping channels and come by fox news. They talking about the Iraqi drones that can carry chemical weapons and supposedly release them. They talk about Saddam's terror cells, and how Saddam could use them against major US cities. When the fuck has Saddam attacked the US, and when did he have terrorists cells? It's fucking Bin Laden that has terrorist cells, Saddam is more worried about killing his people and Israel, he has't done shit to us, nor has it been proven he has supplied terrorists. Just b/c there is a cell in Iraq doesn't mean he supports it. By their logic, the US supports terrorism b/c there are cells here in America. It is idiotic, irresponsible shock journalism like this that pisses me off. Fact check and report the truth before trying to send the public into a fervor.

Sorry for the rant, it just really upset me.

[PilotMan]

I don't believe that North Korea has said publicly that it wants to do everything in its power to destroy the United States.


Or let me clarify and say that it would want to see the US destroyed.


This alone would put it on a different threat level.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Am I correct to assume, if we were treating South Korea as we are treating Iraq, you would still be complaining just as much?

I think if we were treating South Korea as we are treating Iraq most people would be pretty confused.

[JPhillips]

Bee: I don't have any problem with countries being treated differently. Whatever works should be the guiding principle. As to NK, what we are doing isn't working. Thats why we should sit down with the NKs. We aren't though because we made a giant mistake by saying we will never negotiate with them. Now we are trying to find a multi-country approach so as to cover the fact that we are in fact negotiating. The NK policy has been a disaster and I pray that it doesn't lead to a war that won't be over in a couple of weeks.

Pilotman: The NKs spent decades calling for the destruction of the US, SK and Japan. They have nukes. They lob misles toward Japan. They kidnap and/or murder SK and Japanese officials. They are really bad. Add to that the fact that Kim is crazy and I fear them a lot more than Iraq.

[PilotMan]

JR sure they did, they are communists, their whole purpose is to funnel as much money into their military as humanly possible. But the cold war is over, and they are a dinosaur, like Castro. NK would have much more to lose than Iraq if they could launch a full out attack on the US or any other counrty for that matter. They would lose legitimacy as an effective world government. Like the soviets in the 70's and 80's they rattle their sabers ALOT. And we know it and South Korea knows it.

Iraq on the other hand, is seen as a rouge state already, we are already threatening the worst, so what does he have lose.

I think that what you are seeing is a prelude to the kind of conflict that you see in Isreal and the Palestinians. Except the enemies of the US have nothing to gain, like a country, for istance. Whereas, the US is going to the ends of the earth to protect the industrialized world against rouge states.

I guarentee that If Japan, or South Korea said, deal with thid now, we would.

As far as the Bush camp dropping the ball on international affairs, I think you would need to look at the way Clinton handled things. Or lack there of. The dismantling of the military, the complete isolationist theory that we didn't need to take a leading part in the world policing or that terroists or rouge states would cause a serious threat to the US. That mindset paved the way for 9-11.

Bush is trying to make a safer America, he is putting himself on the line, and his presidency as well. If it all falls through, well, he will pay, but imagine if we find things in Iraq that we have said were there all along. Then I think you would need to look at this as a potential disaster averted.

In the aviation world, everyone always hears about the big accidents what went wrong, and what needs changing. But rarely, if ever, is much thought given to the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by prevention or proactive thought. We are just trying to protect the future.

[JPhillips]

Pilot: Lose what legitimacy as a world government? They are the most isolated country in the world. Much more so than Iraq. As for Japan and SK, we said screw you in 2001 when we dropped out of the talks. They are now definately saying fix this, but we aren't about to "negotiate". BTW- can anyone tell me the difference between talks and negotiations?

As to Clinton, is there anything that isn't his fault? Is the military he dismantled the same one that swept through Afghanistan? Is he the same isolationist that intervened in Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo? Is this the same Bush administration that ignored warnings from Sandy Berger regarding Osama until 9/11? I just love the "well Clinton was worse" defense that always comes out.

Finally, I don't understand why NK has become connected to Iraq. They aren't the same thing. Both sides are trying to establish a false link to justify their posiitions. Anti-war folk want to say that NK proves that we are crazy about Iraq and pro-war folk say any questions about NK policy will only help Saddam.

I am asking Bush to do two things at once. I am reluctantly pro-action in Iraq although I think the alienation of much of the globe has been ridiculous. In NK I want a consistant policy that moves us towards less risk of nuclear catastrophy or proliferation. Personally, and even hard conservatives like Novak and Buchanon agree, I want us to resume negotiations and if need be buy them off. It ain't great, but its better than a mushroom cloud over Seoul.

This admin though is so consumed with staying on message that NK has been pushed to the background. Its ugly and inconvenient, but we have to deal with it. If you want to see the real dangers of leaving a crazy dictator with nukes to his own devices look towards NK, not Iraq.