What's new

North Korea Missile Test

I'll be waiting to see what, if anything, they can do... I don't expect that it will be much... You see, North Korea poses a serious problem that the other "evil" countries cannot match; they scare the :9898: out of the USA, the UN, and every other nation that might oppose them. I guess that's what happens when you have a nation being controlled by a pseudo-psychotic little man with nuclear capabilities and long-range missiles.
In the old days, we would have simply nuked them and that would be that (MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese during the first Korean conflict...)
Nowadays everything is so political that countries have these powerful weapons that are basically useless, because the political will is such to make it obvious to friends and foes alike that they will NEVER be used. What makes it unnerving, is that N. Korea has been indoctrinating its troops for decades that there WILL be another war with the US, and has never implied that they wanted peace.
That's what makes them different than the U.S. (personally, I could care less what the UN thinks...they are perhaps the most crooked organization in the world, IMHO.) American politicians are used to the sabre rattling of the cold war days with the Soviet Union; Neither side was REALLY likely to use their weapons; they just liked threatening each other and in turn scaring their own populace into submission. It's the whole boogie-man deal. Support the communist party or the Americans are going to get the upper hand and nuke you into oblivion. Pay huge taxes to your politicians etc, because they are the only thing stopping the Soviet Union from nuking you into oblivion.....
I don't know about you, but I see a thread.
N.Korea,on the other hand....has no such goals of scaring its populace....it IMHO is more likely to actually USE a nuclear weapon, rather than employ it as a political tool like everyone else.
That makes them more dangerous than everyone else,I would say.
John P.
Well this gives the "Axis of Evil" some additional evil with which to ax about. I hope our leader, Karl Rove, protects us.
NMMB said:
I guess that's what happens when you have a nation being controlled by a pseudo-psychotic little man with nuclear capabilities and long-range missiles.

Do you mean George W? :wink:
mark the shoeshine boy said:
What do you guys think of this one ? What should the response be from the United Nations or the US ?

So, let's see:

On the one side, we have an unstable little dictator with an EXTEMELY limited nuclear arsenal of limited capability. Dangerous to an extent, but certainly not the bringer of The End of Days. One wrong move, he's gone anyway, and he knows it too, even with his bluster and missile tests.

On the other side, we have the only country who has ever used a nuclear weapon on a civilian population (twice, actually), and they still have more nuclear weapons than anyone on the planet, and they don't want ANY other nation to have nuclear capability. To top it off they also have an unstable little dictator.

Who am I more afraid of? Hmm...

Peace (and I MEAN that!)

Ah, you guys crack me up, especially with that Karl Rove comment, Ron.

It's relatively simple. NK knows that if they hit the US they'll be destroyed in record time. Period. Plus, they have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the US. Oddly enough, this strikes me as more of a defensive weapon, something that will strengthen NK's position in detering any foreign (i.e. US) interference within the Korean peninsula, either to "liberate" NK or to prevent NK from "liberating" SK from the Americans.

As for what should be done:
-The UN should act to enforce any UN treaties NK is breaking. If they are not explicitly breaking any UN treaties, the UN should do nothing. If they are, the UN should retaliate, but of course they won't do anything beyond sanctions since that's all that their member countries are willing to support. Yes, the UN is terrible at enforcing its treaties with any type of force, but that's because member nations aren't willing to commit the troops and resources necessary to do so, especially under a mandate that may not explicitly mirror their own national agenda.
-The US should get themselves out of Korea, where they never should have been in the first place.
I think it is interesting that this has degraded into a Canadian "US bashing" frenzy, when the question was more about what to do concerning N. Korea. Everyone who didn't sleep through the current events of the last 50 years KNOWS how and why America got so many nuclear weapons, and likewise the Soviet Union (funny, not so many Canadians hated America back when THEY were the target of a few Soviet nukes as well...) . the only reason America has the most now, is that America had HER civil war in the 1860's....as opposed to the Soviets splitting appart into lots of smaller countries, many with smaller nuclear stockpiles inherited from the now defunct Soviet Union.
Not only that, they would also know WHY the U.S. is in Korea....turns out that WAS a UN function, and, I do believe, CANADIAN troops were there as well....and a thin line of mostly Americans are still there (there was no treaty, only an armistice, so technically we are still at war) and are the only thing that kept democratic S Korea from being washed into the sea by Chinese and N Korean communist troops.
N Korea knows it would theoretically be suicide to use their nuclear weapon....and if you believe they only have one, I have a bridge to sell you...
and yet, unlike MOST nations which take that into account, Korea's dictator seems perfectly willing to take the risk. As does the current maniacal dictator of Iran....but that is another story also. I never thought I would see another time when Jews/Christians were required to sew identifying patterns into their clothing....its law in Iran now....
and make fun of our President all you want. After all, he is only human. I'll bet your prime minister isn't much better. To be honest, I've not seen too many great leaders in the world in quite some time, but plenty of politicians....
rant over...
John P.
JohnP said:
I think it is interesting that this has degraded into a Canadian "US bashing" frenzy...
John P.


If you look closely I think that you will note that much of the so called "bashing" was not from Canadians, in fact much of it has come from south of the 49th parallel. You might also note that the "bashing" was/is pretty light (more or less some jokes about GWB - a leader who is unpopular both in the USA and abroad). There is really no need for you to be defensive much less to try reciprocal-bashing by attacking our PM when you have nothing specific to say about Mr. Harper (however, if you would like I would be more than happy to "bash" him as well since I see him as being about as useful as **** on a bull). You are right in believing that the situations in Iran and North Korea are very serious ones indeed; they are. That said, I don't believe that the USA or any other nation should be making any unilateral moves w.r.t. these situations (and I am very pleased to see that so far they are not doing so).
Who's bashing the US? All I see are both Canadians and Americans who are less than impressed with your current leader. Canadians don't hate America, although you're certainly correct that they were far closer during the days in which both our nations shared governments with similar anti-Soviet propaganda. And yes, you're quite right, our current Prime Minister isn't much better than George W. (actually, if you were to remove them from their political environments and look at their individual political ideals ours would probably fair far worse), but that in no way invalidates our dislike of your leader - many of us didn't vote for our Prime Minister, just like many of you didn't vote for your President. The fact that we dislike our own leader as well is hardly relevant to this discussion however, since with regard to NK Canada - and by extention our Prime Minister as well - is at best peripheral, if not utterly irrelevant.

And I agree entirely that there are very, very few great leaders in the world. Unfortunately we seem to have many politicians, but few statesmen.
Xert said:
...And I agree entirely that there are very, very few great leaders in the world. Unfortunately we seem to have many politicians, but few statesmen.
There, at least is something I definitely agree with. The America bashing I percieved were the comments about America's nuclear stockpile (when they were being made, EVERYONE wanted us to have them...to keep the Soviets in check) being so large. Well folks, a nuclear weapon isn't something you can easily dispose of. Nor is it something one gives to friends. Once you have one, you have it. Just because the Soviet Union went away doesn't mean the umteen milllion year half-life nuclear weapons will be gone.
The comment that America should never have been in Korea also irked me, when I know full well that Korea was a United Nations action, and that to leave would ensure the demise of S Korea as we know it.
As to leader bashing, Neither country has a great statesman that I know of, and as far as having nothing specific to say about Mr Harper, what is the difference? you guys can bash our president with implications that he is stupid, or mentally "small" so apparently knowing something specific is not required to throw an insult. Because of our "stupid" president, Women are going to school for the first time in years in Afghanistan(yes, there are still problems) people have VOTED for the first time in 30 years in Iraq; No large buildings in New York full of thousands of innocent civilians was destroyed all year....
So he's not ALL bad. Yes, people dislike him (I am not too fond of quite a few of his domestic policies....immigration, for instance...a high school kid in San Diego can not find work, because there is already 15 35 year old illegal aliens already waiting for the job, and willing to do it for less than the legal minimum wage....)
Perhaps I just took it all wrong, and if I did, I apologize. It just seemed an awful lot to me as if folks were using Kim Jon Il's nukes (and delivery vehicles...he can now reach California, and even closer, the western half of Canada) as a tool to bag on the U.S.
Anyway, perceptions are perceptions.
as Pierre said,
John P.
NMMB said:
Well said, Stephen.

I agree.

Also, I think I may have inginted at least part of this with my rahter acerbic remarks about the US possession of nukes and G.W. Bush. I apologize to those who may take offence. But make no mistake, I still feel that President Bush is one of the worst things to happen to the world in general, and to the US in particular, in the last quarter century or so.

As for Prime Minister Harper, you can put him in the same basket as Tony Blair and any other lap dog - they're all useless and none of them are leaders of anything. It's truly a bad state of affairs internationally, and it's not helping the cause of peace anywhere.

But please, please, please do not take my anti-American government stance to mean more than it is. This is no reflection on how I feel about the US poplulation in general. I simply find american POLITICS, whether it's defense policy, foreign policy,or any other policy, to be rather over-reactive, obtuse, and agressive, and I don't think that the world benefits, and I am quite certain that the US as a nation is poorer when leaders such as Bush make truly bad decisions in the name of the entire country.

As for Iran and N. Korea, they are being lead stright into a razor-wire fence at full speed with their own brand of international taunting, and the only people who will lose, in the long run, are the leaders of those countries, those who follow them, and, unfortunately, some of the populations of those countries who don't know or care about any of it. They are scary, but not imminent threats to world peace.

In fact, I find it ironic that the "Axis of Evil" still comes up once in a while, when everyone seems to totally ignore China, the only other true super power on this planet, and quite capable causing gloabl conflict if they wished to go in that direction. They already control the world, including the US and Canada, through a trade monopoly. Just wait for the other boot to drop...


To join the choir here. . .

I don't see this as a US/Canadian issue at all. Rather, its a matter of being disappointed in the leadership of our President, and most of the Congress and Senate for that matter. Its worth remembering that half--or more ;)--of the US population didn't vote for Bush, so its particularly bitter to watch him flounder around up there on the world stage; a sentiment shared by many Canadians and Europeans as well.
Top Bottom