user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Take a moment from your knee-jerk UN bashing, herz, and tell us what you would do, were you the Secretary General. Gather up a huge Coalition of the Willing and try to chaneg their regime?
Cathexis, you take a moment and tell us what should be done.
Cath: A) are you saying this approach will work? And B) I've given my alternative numerous times before, but here we go again:
Make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons by NK anwywhere, including selling them to other organizations that will use them, will be considered a direct nuclear attack on the United states and will result in an overwhelming response.
Shut down their ports and borders to the best of our abilities. Including a complete freeze on any weapons, materials that could be used to make weapons, and all US aid until they have disarmed.
Make it clear the South korea and japan will be allowed to likewise develop nukes to counter them.
Engage china is overt discussions about the problem, they have as much to fear as we do, and get them to put pressure on kim.
And also point out that any attempt to further their arsenal, build more plants, purchase more uranium etc will be stopped, or met with force if necessary.
Ideally we wouldn't have given them two nuclear reactors and a two term grace period. But that's in the past and we can't undo the clinton legacy.
And besides "stay the course, give diplomacy a chance" and the ever popular "this is all bushs fault" what is your solution to this problem?
"this is all bushs fault"
Who says that? People complain because it's hypocritical for Bush to continue with talks, yet invade Iraq for the same reason.
"Shut down their ports and borders to the best of our abilities. Including a complete freeze on any weapons, materials that could be used to make weapons, and all US aid until they have disarmed."
With what? the army is bogged down in Iraq, besides, their people are already starving, so what will cutting off further aid do? Further degredate the already starving population?
"And also point out that any attempt to further their arsenal, build more plants, purchase more uranium etc will be stopped, or met with force if necessary."
Didn't Bush already say, "We won't stand for a nuclear north Korea?" but they launched a weapon, nothing happens. Not that the weapon caused any great damage on a huge magnitude though.
"Make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons by NK anwywhere, including selling them to other organizations that will use them, will be considered a direct nuclear attack on the United states and will result in an overwhelming response."
Again, they already launched a nuke.
"Engage china is overt discussions about the problem, they have as much to fear as we do, and get them to put pressure on kim."
Bush has already been pressing for roundtable talks.
Here's the problem: it's hypocritical to say that NK can't have them, while saying it's ok for Pakistan and India (who can already blow each out of the sky) can. You could say, well, that evil dictator can't have them, but ppl will say, "so why can Israel, Pakistan and India have them?"
by aya on Fri Oct 13, 06 1:44pm
[+]
Regime change can only happen from within.
airdrop millions of portable radios into North Korea. One that can't be used to build anything else (solid state) then provide them with programming from the world (not just american indoctrination channel) and let them see what the world looks like, and kick Kim out themselves.
for the nukes problem, without hard currency they won't be able to continue on that path. Don't send them any more money, period.
airdrop food packets for hte people, but no dollars.
by LCD on Fri Oct 13, 06 3:26pm
[+]
A small note to this.
According to Fox News (and they're *never wrong*, right?), there is *no nuclear fallout registering" in the area of the supposed test. Now, it's *possible* that the Norht Koreans managed to seal the underground blast area and keep and radiation from leaking out. It's also possible that my last name is Walton, and I'm worth several billion dollars.
*Nothing happened*, folks. The Man in the Pompadour has jerked our chains *yet again*. *Breathe*...
Addendum- (which, IMO, backs my POV) reports now say that there appears to have beena single nuclear test, among many others made at the same time. Now, i'm aware that we're dealing with a nutjob who thinks he's actually a Stud Dog First Class, and that doing this might be a red herring among the red herrings, but *really*, folks! If you want the world to know that you've got a real live nuke, that you're a threat to be reckoned with, you pop off *one nuke*! You don't make people sit around for days and guess, "Did he or didn't he?"
As someone said a few years back, "Don't buy the hype."
Big cloud, lots of dust, no rain.
aya- ""Make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons by NK anwywhere, including selling them to other organizations that will use them, will be considered a direct nuclear attack on the United states and will result in an overwhelming response."
Again, they already launched a nuke."
- The concern here is not that. Yes, North Korea unfortunately already has nuclear weapons. But what herzog is referring to, is the concernt that North Korea may pass on nuclear weapons to other countries. This should not be allowed to happen.
"Here's the problem: it's hypocritical to say that NK can't have them, while saying it's ok for Pakistan and India (who can already blow each out of the sky) can. You could say, well, that evil dictator can't have them, but ppl will say, "so why can Israel, Pakistan and India have them?" "
- No, it is not hypocritical, not even a little bit. It is entirely consistent. Pakistan, India and Israel never signed the NPT (Nuclear NOn-Proliferation Treaty) and therefore by international law do not have the exact same pressures and expectations on them as other nation-states who have signed the treaty and are now violating it (such as Iran and North Korea who had both signed the NPT). There is no hypocrisy there, it is completely consistent with the framework of international law.
' Who says that? People complain because it's hypocritical for Bush to continue with talks, yet invade Iraq for the same reason.'
Is this a serious question? Can't be.
' Who says that? People complain because it's hypocritical for Bush to continue with talks, yet invade Iraq for the same reason.'
I thought this was an international problem? Or does the US bear sole responsibility for policing the world?
' Didn't Bush already say, "We won't stand for a nuclear north Korea?" but they launched a weapon, nothing happens. Not that the weapon caused any great damage on a huge magnitude though.'
It was a test, they didn't launch it at a city. It wasn't meant to cause damage, it was meant to show what they could do.
' Again, they already launched a nuke. '
No, they buried one in their own country and set it off. They didn't launch it at say Seoul.
' Bush has already been pressing for roundtable talks. '
So he's doing the right thing on this. Pressuring china won't stop North Korea from developing nukes, the time to do that was back in the 90s. But they can make it clear to kim, in a way we can't, what will happen to them if they get a little to full of themselves and try to throw their weight around.
'
Here's the problem: it's hypocritical to say that NK can't have them, while saying it's ok for Pakistan and India (who can already blow each out of the sky) can. You could say, well, that evil dictator can't have them, but ppl will say, "so why can Israel, Pakistan and India have them?"'
Is it hypocritical for a safe driver to say a habitual alcoholic cannot own a car? Is it hypocritical for a proffessional soldier to question the wisdom of giving firearms to serial killers?
There is a difference between Israel and North Korea. Can't you see it?
|
|
