"(Bush is) a political imbecile bereft of even elementary morality as a human being and a bad guy, much less being a politician" and said he had started wars in Iraq and elsewhere "to commit genocide as he pleases... "Bush is a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade and his group of such tyrants is a typical gang of political gangsters," the statement said, adding that North Korea would increase its defense capabilities a "thousand times.""

I've heard as bad here, from people who consider themselves Western progressive intellectuals. It all amounts to dick, imho. If Bush and the US were what we are painted to be, we'd be invading Canada, not Iraq. People can claim that we use the evils of other nations as excuses for imperialism, but frankly the evils are there, and the rest is interpretation.

In my opinion North Korea is desperate because they have been telling their population that the war never ended for 40 years, telling them that we are the great evil of the world, and telling them that their way of life is viable and morally right. Now, with the advent of the Internet and a globalized community, they can't keep their people in the dark anymore, and the billions they have spent on "defense" in the last half-century have amounted to nothing.

They have starved their people, brainwashed them, and they are looking down the barrel of self-destruction. They have to validate their lies by either making their legendary war or extorting a noteworthy position in the world. The more they rattle their sabres, the closer they get to one of the two aims. There's a reason that English is the #1 second language in Korea. They can only be viable alongside us, or fighting us.

Yes, Thanks Baker... the fact remains though, Kim II appears to be another crazy despot - alas a Crazy Despot with a lot more weapons than Saddam had.

The international approach towards the DPRK will be very interesting - it's like he is a child, if you insult him, you will not get anywhere, so we need to isolate the nations that the administration will work with, and get them working immediately.

They are a very real threat.

BAM!!!

I think one of the main differences is that "containment" makes better sense with Korea. Invasion is a simple impossibility. It wasn't with Iraq. When Kim dies, they'll be hard pressed to find anyone as nuts as him. Hussein's sons were arguable MORE nuts than him. No one is really stepping up to overtly side with North Korea. Half of Europe was waiting for the military sanctions to drop in Iraq so they could yet again make billions arming him.

It is all arguable and subjective, but I think what has occured in Iraq could NEVER happen in Korea. They will either be decimated or victorious. The fact that regime change was possible in Iraq is the main difference. Though people always say "Why not Korea", none of them seem to know how the hell it could be done without literally millions of casualites.

Sure, Bush baited them, but perhaps that baiting was what brought it all to the forefront. I don't know if it was wise or not, but I can accept that the public is privy to probably less than 1% of the information the President and his staff has when they make those decisions. I am willing to accept it, considering North Korea is much, much worse than he painted them. Had he distorted or exagerated their threat I might feel differently.

How bad is a country who's leader spends 1/5th of his budget on Arms when over 1,000,000 of
his citizens die of starvation? That is almost 4 % of the population. Or how about where you can be sent to the coal mines as slave labor
if someone higher in the party hiearchy denounces you. Or you tell your senior spy to train a young girl to
plant a bomb on an airliner, killing in excess of 100 people? (young Kim passed the order personally)
How about trying to blow up the South Korean Foreign minister when he went to Rangoon. They detonated
the bomb early but killed a number of lower ranked functionaries.
Now tell me why I should believe the words that come from their government . Please give me one.

Now tell me why I should believe the words that come from their government . Please give me one

I have a few - they are in the form of ICBM's though, and a proven will to use them!!!

BAM!!!

have a few - they are in the form of ICBM's though, and a proven will to use them!!!

Then thank Bush for restarting the Missille defence system that is now having the first units deployed in Alaska.

Bring it on North Korea, and if you think we will not turn that country into a glass parking, think again. I even think Kerry would approve of that.

BAMM!!! With a big Boom baby..

Bring it on North Korea, and if you think we will not turn that country into a glass parking, think again. I even think Kerry would approve of that.

Yeah - Americans are so cool and morrally superior...



*sigh*

BAM!!!

I think the Bush administration is ready to deal energy/econ aid plus a temporary non-agression treaty in exchange for a freeze and inspections.

If North Korea shoots a missle at someone, the US will retaliate, even if Kerry is in the White House.

Btw, the correct term for the 6 nation talks is multi-lateral. Bi-lateral would only be talks between 2 nations.

The missle defense system is a good Idea, but it is a failure. They have allowed it to continue in development while suspending tests completley. It is absurd and a waste of tax payer money. The system has never worked, and never will work. Maybe they should have spent more time coming up with the shield rather than insisting it be ready right away. We aren't in the cold war, and nobody is going to nuke us unless they want to be turned into piles of melted human flesh and bone.

That's your expert opinion, sandy? Oddly, the missile research you allude to has spawned technologies currently at use in the military every day.

If you go back and look, people were saying the same thing about the B-2 bomber before they realized they had no idea what they were talking about. Kerry voted against it, too, oddly.

Granted, I'm sure folks sitting at home watching TV know all about what is really going on in (classified) missile defense research. Why would I ever question them?

Mugz, why is it that you always argue from the position that the US must be the one to give in?

Not Give in - lead by exaple... different things.

They will only use them once.

Once too many.

That was asinine and uncalled for Mugz...i still dont see the "change of heart" you claim to have had concerning americans

I dont have a change of heart toward some Americans because some of you welcome hostility just because you have bigger bombs. I am sick of this - "I would like to see them try it" attitude that would give Americans the thing they have been craving for so long - a reason to prove to the world how powerful they are, and if provoked, a genuine desire to use weapons of mass destruction.

No one is even worried that Kim would be happy to Nuke the USA, simply because you know you have the capability to wipe him and his nation of the face of the earth - I dont try and hide my disgust at that attitude, and some Americans make no effort to show people like me that they wouldn't be happy to wipe out an entire population - provoked or not.

You are already talking about the retaliatory strike, and the first hasn't even happened yet - why dont you work to make sure it doesn't? rather than saying - "bring that shit on."

BAM!!!

Remember Muggaz, that the australians were quite worried about Japan advancing from new Guinea
into Australia through the Coral Sea, yes that place where American and Japanese carriers duked it out,
without ever spotting each other except by aircraft. I believe the older Generation of Aussies may
have appreciated our "bigger bombs". Domo Arigato

Forget Kim Jong Il, he's all flash and no game. He spends too much time in the hands of his "pleasure brigade" (yes, that means exactly everything you think it does,) or surfing the internet. The real danger is what happens when that fat bastard's arteries finally clog shut, and the country is left up for grabs.

As for invasion, it is difficult if not completely out of the question. A few years ago, Kim Jong Il threatened to turn Seoul into a sea of fire, and they could do just that. Twenty million south koreans go to bed each night with a potential rain of artillery over their heads. Could we do something about it? Sure. But what kind of collateral damage are we talking about before we bomb the hell out of their guns? A few thousand? More? That's all well to risk in the name of defense, and might even save lives in the long run, but will the S. Korean government really let us be the aggressor in something that could potentially kill so many of it's civilians?
-a former part of the 2ID tripwire, spc. nbs.

I believe the older Generation of Aussies may have appreciated our "bigger bimbs". Domo Arigato

Oh, I appreciate them, make no mistake - just not the desire to use them so eagerly. Let me go on the record as saying I am on your side - which is more concerning for me, because obviously if the USA get caught up in a conflict, Australia does as well - I would just like to avert said conflict at all costs, and a "we can bomb them, so why dont we" attitude is something I want to distance myself from...

BAM!!!

read Spc NBS' post, he states the realist view of it.
Remember, just because you can doesn't mean you should.