Posted on 10/11/2006 8:45:41 AM PDT by excludethis
The 5 party talks are effective because when the Nork's break their word , we're not the only one with egg on their face.
China's reaction was reported as the strongest condemnation ever. They rioted in S.Korea. Abe's election in Japan was a good sign. Abe talks of changing the 'pacifist' constitution of Japan.
Let's roll!!
George Washington McLintock: I know I'm gonna use good judgment. I haven't lost my temper in 40 years, but pilgrim you caused a lot of trouble this morning, might have got somebody killed... and somebody oughta belt you in the mouth. But I won't, I won't. The hell I won't [Belts man in the mouth]
He should use a different quote from the Duke.
If anything goes wrong, anything at all your fault, my fault nobody's fault your going to die. No matter what else happens or who else gets killed, your going to die.
North Korea is a sensitive issue. We're talking about a country that could have several more nukes in hiding and is being run by a genocidal madman. Push him too far too soon, and thousands of innocent people will vanish in seconds.
Remember what Sun Tzu said in "The Art of War"; "In war, the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won." Kim will get his, but first we must make set it up so that we're going into a fight we can win, and win with the least amount of casualties and collateral damage.
Korea is a proxy hostile.. China could end this in a day but they are using mini-me to full advantage. China is at war with us but the China Lobby in government and business refuses to admit it.
Allow me to paste your first post in its entirety...
"Mr Bush needs to grow a big pair of you know what, this is turning into the biggest joke ever. The psycho in North Korea just tested a nuclear weapon and our response is "We won't attack you". Mr bush please pull our troops out of Korea, they don't need to be sitting ducks to this mad man."
You say Bush "needs to grow a pair" and criticize our response of "We won't attack you". Now you are claiming you weren't implying we should attack North Korea?!? Then you infer I must be in favor of "psychotic morons with nuclear weapons". Although it is pretty clear you are advocating some sort of direct response, I'll accept from your rhetorical question that you weren't. That leaves me to conclude that your solution is to sound a full retreat and withdraw from the Korean Peninsula altogether. Interesting strategy coming from someone advising President Bush to "grow a big pair". I'm guessing you are either French or schizophrenic. Maybe both?
We might as well pack up and go home now.
"Maybe we should just ignore them...."Smartest thing i've heard in a while.Kim is more like a small child throwing a temper tantrum,and of course the msm gives this tin pot dictator all the ink and film he desires.
Hey, we may need the overflight airspace to send parts to Iran:
http://www.military.com/earlybrief/0,,,00.html
U.S. to sell Tehran jet parts
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 12, 2006
Exactly true, it brings to mind a Bugs Bunny cartoon.........
When NK launched missiles earlier this year, we should have flattened his launchers or launch sites. When he tested a nuke, we should have flattened the reactors. We will soon find out that we are more afraid of being nuked, than either the Chinese, Nk's, or the Muzzies. That is when the real backing down will happen by us.
Maybe they can have a Picknick together!
Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", this document was written for the White House by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff and updates rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
Everyone should read this.
The problem is of course that a 1/2 million in "good" hooch can be smuggled across the mountains by a guy with a couple of Llamas.
Cutting off Little Kim's luxuries sounds good, but is not as easy as it sounds. Unless you want to drop every bridge in North Korea and those parts of China and the Russian Far East which border it. But of course if you are going to do that, it will have other more direct and useful effects.
When was the last time someone tested a nuke after we stated, in no uncertain terms, that it would be unacceptable.
IIRC, we attacked Iraq in part because we thought they might be able to test a nuke someday, maybe soon.
Little Kim is, if anything, farther off his rocker than Saddam ever was, or is today for that matter, and he's pretty far gone since his capture.
I'm pretty sure we raised objections to India, Pakistan and China. Regardless, there isn't much we can really do. Who knows where their facilities are loctated, they most likely have several "bombs" (and have for years) and they are no doubt spread around the country.
"we attacked Iraq in part because we thought they might be able to test a nuke someday, maybe soon."
Not true. I don't think the possibility of them "testing" a nuke ever made the list. The assumption that they possessed a large but unkown amount of WMD of various types was a real problem. So was the 16 or so UN resolutions that they'd blown off over the last couple decades. And so was the fact that they were continuously firing on our aircraft enforcing the UN resolutions. I would imagine if/when NK starts firing missiles at our aircraft, we might ratchet up the stakes a little.
"Little Kim is, if anything, farther off his rocker than Saddam ever was, or is today for that matter, and he's pretty far gone since his capture."
I fully agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.