Panic as Kim plots nuclear crisis to an ancient strategy

The Sunday Times ^ | January 19, 2003 | Michael Sheridan

[antaresequity]

once and for all

Dream on...

[boris]

"He crossed paths with Maurice Strong, a United Nations emissary who returned from a visit to investigate the deteriorating conditions of life for the country’s 22m people."

Strong is a traitor to humanity. He should be captured, slowly roasted, and eaten by the starving subjects of Kim Jong-Il.

--Boris

[St.Chuck]

You seem to have a particular dislike for President Bush. May I ask why you are not at Democrat Underground?

I'm not the one who attributed the base quality of revenge to characterize our president. You are. Furthermore, attempting to understand world affairs by questioning those who seem to have a greater understanding than me, should hardly indicate a dislike for the president. On the other hand, your reaction does demonstrate that perhaps you have an unhealthy blind allegiance that perhaps makes you a more compatible denizen of Democrat Underground than I could be.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Six Japanese CVNXs? Is that really want we want? Remember the last time they had carriers?

[rogue yam]

I, too, am getting really sick of this Maurice Strong fellow. Elected to nothing by anybody yet flying around injecting himself into all sorts of situations for the sole purpose, it seems, of undermining U.S. interests. I wish he'd find something else to do.

[marron]

By the way, I think every US Marine Corps officer is required to have read Sun Tzu, as well.

My Sun Tzu is bigger than your Sun Tzu...

[Nick Danger]

After all, according to David Frum, the policy to remove Saddam was initiated well before 9/11, so maybe revenge is a factor.

Yes, it was. In fact the "regime change" resolution was passed by Congress during the Clinton Administration. What sort of revenge do you suppose Clinton had been planning?

[marshmallow]

Strong’s investigation highlighted warnings that a cut-off in American and Japanese fuel and food aid — caused by the nuclear crisis — will bring the Stalinist state to the brink of a new humanitarian disaster within three months. “You cannot make the children, the ill people, the old people, victims of a political crisis which they have nothing to do with,” said Strong, in apparent criticism of American and Japanese policy.

Yes, it may bring the Stalinist state to the brink of a new humanitarian disaster, but it may also bring it to its knees. A starving people, which thinks that it will die anyway, may then finally rise up and attack its true oppressors; the "Dear Leader" and his henchmen.

As well as the threat of a US strike, Kim's meagre gray matter needs to be kept occupied with the thought of domestic insurrection also.

It's time to really turn the screws on this pig and make him squeal.

[concerned about politics]

Furthermore, attempting to understand world affairs by questioning those who seem to have a greater understanding

Who would that be? Dashole?

[Uncle Miltie]

“You cannot make the children, the ill people, the old people, victims of a political crisis which they have nothing to do with,” said Strong (U.N. apparatchik), in apparent criticism of American and Japanese policy.

Quite right. The U.N. could require China, signatory to international refugee agreements, to adhere to humane treatment of political refugees. The U.N. could then feed fleeing North Koreans, rather than turn a blind eye as China returns them to certain torture and murder.

Hey, Kofi, where's your sorry a$$ when it's really needed? Scarfing some more caviar while Koreans eat grass roots?

[Diana Rose]

US rethinks troop presence in S. Korea


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/825256/posts

[Nick Danger]

I think this is a wonderful thing. Here is an entirely new and exciting challenge guaranteed to keep our hand-wringing European friends and their UN patsies entertained while we take care of business in Iraq.

They can hem and haw and chew their cuds and have just a great old time while we go in and rid the world of the dictator behind door number 1. The guy behind door number 2 can give them all the hang-wringing excitement they need.

What a bunch of hysterical weenie-ism we have in this article.

the regime of Kim Jong Il is expected to wreak maximum damage on American policy by timing any move at a critical moment, such as the entry of US soldiers into the Iraqi capital.

How is setting off an explosion inside one of his own mountains going to "wreak maximum damage" on anything, let alone American policy? Oh sure, the hand-wringers will go nuts. But what will really have happened? The guy now has one less nuke than he had before. Good.

By staging a nuclear test in one of the warrens of tunnels deep under North Korea’s mountains, Kim would send an unequivocal signal that he cannot be treated like Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader.

He may think he's sending that signal, and the hand-wringers will surely kill a million trees telling us that he did, but I could see the signal not being received at our end. The signal we might get is that to take him out, we're going to have to be even quicker and bloodier. In fact we might have to use nukes to make sure that million-man army he's got doesn't go anywhere while we take out the reactors.

A verified test would resolve that but it would also pose a dilemma for America, forcing it to decide between taking military action and striking a deal with a member of President George W Bush’s “axis of evil”.

Oh, horsefeathers. He's not our problem. We could choose to do nothing.

Its gravest consequence would be to maximise pressure on Japan to develop its own nuclear missiles, destroying the balance of power that has kept the peace in northeast Asia for half a century.

There. See what happens if we do nothing? You folks in China should think about this before your little Chuckie puppet goes too far with this act.

“You cannot make the children, the ill people, the old people, victims of a political crisis which they have nothing to do with,” said Strong, in apparent criticism of American and Japanese policy.

What's this, a hostage crisis where the guy holds his own people hostage? And we're supposed to feed them while he builds nukes? Bull. That's just one more argument for taking him out.

[ARCADIA]

With or without the nuclear option, NK would not survive a war with the South. So they must content themselves with saber rattling, and possibly an attack that approaches but falls short of full war.

I agree with you. I think this is a ruse, too. And, Dr. Evil's 15 mins. of super fame.

[St.Chuck]

Maybe you didn't read the same David Frum book I did. The lack of attention to the Iraq problem in the previous administration was mentioned.

Look, I didn't bring up Bush's ability to remember those who cross him. My concern is that he wage's this war with the best of motives and that they be clear and articulated perfectly, because his support is going to diminish come 2004. His reelection is very important. There is growing opposition, domestic and foreign, and he better get it right. He cannot back away from it now. It will happen, so any criticism as to his motives must be dealt with, not relegated to some liberal website. The vengeance of the electorate following 9/11 will continue to wane in the next year, and what is essentially a liberal culture will do their utmost to reClintonize the White House. His ties to oil, his ties to his father, a political motivation to jump start the economy, no Iraqi ties to 9/11 terrorists, and the citing of UN resolution violations when violating UN resolutions is common amongst nations....all open doors to opposition. And suspicion. Especially when contrasted with Bush's approach to the equally dangerous (possibly more) Kim Jong-il. So, if one wants to be a Bush backer they better know how to put these kind of criticisms to rest without the assertions that one must be a democrat to entertain them.

[St.Chuck]

What sort of revenge do you suppose Clinton had been planning?

Clinton probably had another scandal he needed to obscure.:o).Can you give specifics about a regime change resolution during the Clinton administration?

[St.Chuck]

Aren't you a witty one.

[Nick Danger]

Can you give specifics about a regime change resolution during the Clinton administration?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338)

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

[armyboy]

So, if we drop a nuke on them the same night we hit Iraq, we can blame it on them messing up a test?------Sounds like a good plan to me.