Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Try this. web page

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Middle east.June. web page

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

My American wife says it's time to go to bed. Goodnight all.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Lordy I hate to weigh in on an OT topic, but 3/4 of a bottle of good Spanish wine made me do it....

Iraq: Gulf War I (1991, Bush 41's war) wasn't finished. Rule#1 absolutely has to be that shooting war between dictator & USA = dictator goes down. Went for Santa Anna, went for the Kaiser, went for Der Fuhrer, went for Togo, that it didn't go for Kim's pappy & Uncle Ho was an abomination. Didn't stop at the Rhine in '45, so shouldn't have stopped at the Euphrates in '91. Therefore, correcting that error would have been self-justified in '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, '00, '01, or '02. We finally did it in '03 - what took so long? Everything after that falls under Powell's "you break it, you bought it" doctrine, but IMO there wasn't any choice but to break it (it being Saddam).

Tony Blair: The guy's a big-time lefty. Bush 41 sent political operatives to (unsuccessfully) help his opposition keep him out of power. The bulk of his own party loaths his foriegn policy alignment with the eeeevil Bushchimphitler, and he has to rely on the Tories to keep the wheels on re Iraq. Yet, he sticks his head in the meat grinder anyway. Why? Well, the guy clearly ain't STUPID, so clearly the only answer is that he really believes in the mission and has the STRENGTH OF CHARACTOR to put right before politically expediency. Plus, he's really good at speachifying. So, despite the fact that I agree with next to nothing he's done in "domestic policy", I love the guy.

What the Euros think of the US: Not a matter of great concern to me. I love Europe - love the wine, love the food, love the art, love the history, "some of my best friends are European" (including my wife, BTW), and remain majorly impressed with the French contribution to US independence (I have pics of the placs at Yorktown, and scoffed at the C.2003 "boycott"). However, their opinion on US foriegn policy carries about as much weight with me as the opinion of the waiter on the subject of my retirement investments.

North Korea: We won't do anything. The problem for SK is that Seoul is within artillery range of NK, NK has wads of heavy arty stationed in range to pound Seoul to rubble, and most of the SK economy is concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area. Hence, Kim has SK by the short hairs even w/o nukes. If we did do something, though - look, NK is a 3rd World basket case armed with Soviet export model ("monkey model" as the Soviets themselves called it) equipment or Chinese/local clones thereof, and organized/trained per the demonstrated-ineffective Soviet "military science". Any modern Western force would go through them like... Schwarzkopf through the Iraqis. However, it ain't gonna happen. So, Kim will build his "Dongs" and we'll all jaw about it, and maybe the Japanese will go nuclear too, but someday the wheels will come off and Kim ends up like Ceausescu - unless he does someting totally stupid like launch a missile AT Japan/SK/US - in which case the Schwarzkopf thing probably happens and if he's lucky Kim ends up in is silly show trial like Saddam.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

They are polling about stability not peace. And I find it interesting that Iran runs a close second even though it has no where near the ability to project force. Stability includes energy pricing which has risen dramatically since the US invasion, and undoubtedly had some influence on the results. Strange thing here is that it looks like unregulated hedge fund money may be more to blame than the war. One hedge fund takes a mortal wound in the energy futures markets and the others pull out, now oil is falling, even after the first round of production cuts it still fell some more.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Did you even read the whole article? Look at who and where they polled.

Then ask yourself this. Who is most likely to set off a nuclear device in say London? The US? Iran? Israel? North Korea? France? Russia? India?

You will get an answer if you ask the question and the answer might very depending on the control demographics of the poll. But that has nothing to do with the truth, which is that none of them are likely to commit such a terrible act.

In the second link they hint at the demographics that were used, and it seems as if the people polled were not a representative group of people based on the story line.

PS: I was going to pass on the source of your second link, but what the heck, why let this guy get away with his form of creative journalism. Just Google search the author and see if you still want to use the second link to support your argument http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Lol! You americans wouldn't know a lefty if it jumped up and nationalised your public services! To you guys a 'lefty' is someone who suggests that just maybe, sometimes, in some extreme theoretical circumstances, it might be reasonable to suggest that perhaps government money might legitimately be used to assist sick people who can't afford to see a doctor. Anyone further left than that is a rabid communist and should be shot.

Our traditional political spectrum has your 'lefties' beyond our mainstream right wing and our 'lefties' as proper socialists: Renationalise the trains, the hospitals, all that. The posh toffs of the tory party were the right wing (yah, boo, hiss) and working class trade unionists of Labour were on the left. The intellectual liberals were piggy in the middle (and they never got to catch the ball).

Over the last 10 years Blair has pulled his so called 'labour' party further right than the tories! Our leftmost party now (disregarding the minority fringie parties) is the liberal party, which *used* to be the dead centre ground. There is no longer a true, large scale socialist party in this country, which leaves a powerful vacuum waiting to be filled.

On the other hand, Blair has dragged our entire political stage so far right (based on some US model, as far as I can see) that now people are starting to wonder if the right wing UKIP party (or, as I like to call them, the "I'm not racist BUT..." party) are the 'true' voice of modern Britain. Even the BNP (the 'let's beat up all the black people and deport them to Africa' party) are winning votes.

Me? I've given up on the lot of them. I don't believe in policy any more, since politicians state their policies before the elections, then promptly do the exact opposite of what they promised, grab all the cash out of the public purse and blow it on whores, wars and big expensive cars. I might just about vote liberal next time, since they haven't been in power yet so I feel they ought to be given a chance to (dis)prove themselves before I give up on democracy altogether, stop voting, stop paying taxes and turn anarchist.

We all talk so smugly about our "democracies" in threads like these but when was the last time *your* duly elected representative actually served the will of the people rather than their own interests? Democracy is a scam.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

That was an excellent article, thanks for the link.

I would not call it hostility. There are a lot of complex issues at stake and heated emotions. I, for one, appreciated it when someone calls me on my own lack of logic or a poorly thought out position. This may be OT for this forum, but its completely ON Topic for each and every one of us! Don't give up. Its a lot more important than whether or not SEV Standard is balanced http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I fully understand that the political spectrum in the US is rather to the right of Europe. However, my understand of the one in the UK is that relative to each other the Tories are like the GOP, New Labour is like DLC democrats (Bill Clinton, etc...) and "old Labour" & the Liberal party are like the left wing of our Democratic party & our Green party. That's relative to each other. On an absolute scale, and in reference to domestic policy only, I'd compare the Tories to the DLC Democrats, New Labour to the left wing of the Democrats and "old Labour" & the Liberal party would be someplace off to the left of the US maintream.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif In that case, I guess we (Canadians) must be slobbering, filthy commies http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif After all, we have that most evil of evils, universal public health care http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif I'm damn happy we do too, or else my appendectomy would have cost a ****load of money, and my grandpa's knee replacement (2nd, actually, after the first was botched...) wouldn't have been affordable, and hence he'd be in a wheelchair. But I digress.

I wonder how Canada's democratic system corresponds to that of the US and Britain. Let's see...

Our New Democratic Party would probably correspond to whoever is leftist in Britain and the US, and I'm damn glad they haven't been in power for decades. Scary bunch they are.

The Liberals would (probably) correspond to whoever is "middle of the line" in the US and Britain, though they got somewhat humbled in the last election.

The Conservatives aren't really right wing, they're closer to the center, though further right than the other two major parties.

Forget about the Bloc, only the Quebecois vote for them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Oh, please.

First, no need to apologise.

Second, if I'd known english wasn't your native tongue, I'd have been quite a bit less harsh. *I* will apologise for that.

Third, I did not attack you personally. I attacked your statement. As my catholic friends say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

There is no hostility toward you here. I did express scorn for what you appeared to be saying. But that's not the same thing.

30 years ago, at the age of 17, I lived and worked in the city of London. Over and over, I had this exchange with brits and other europeans -

Them: "So, are you Canadian?"
Me: "Ah, no, actually, I'm American."
Them: "F***ing Americans"

Now that, my friend, is hostility. Unearned, unwarranted, unjustified hostility.

Oh, there were reasons then, just as there are reasons now.

Then it was the aftermath of the war in southeast asia, during which we Americans were regularly vilified and excoriated in the european press.

Today, it's Iraq, and we are being regularly vilified and excoriated in the european press...

As Howard Cosell said, "It's like deja vu all over again!"

I enjoy the company of european people. I enjoy their foods and wines. I respect their sometimes superior and always different ways of doing things.

But as for their political opinions, well, yeah, pardon me while I try to look like someone who gives a damn http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Well...it's good to know they like Canadians http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I think it's more a matter of nobody feeling threatened by the Canadians. You know, we got Rambo & John Wayne & Clint Eastwood, whereas you got Dudley Do-Right and the McKenzie Brothers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

When I first read your post I did think you were attacking me personally, especially my poor English skills. English is my first language-I am just not too good at writing it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

I had no intention of being anti-American. I just thought a view from the English ‘left’ would be of some interest. I tend to be centrist-right when it comes to politics.

But I must confess to being English though. If it helps, my wife is American and we do spend most of our vacations in New England.

I am an Englishman with Canadian citizenship married to an American whose background is Irish and French. I have to like everybody.

My wife, who read your post, did mutter something about wanting to cut off more than an ear. You will have to excuse her though, she’s from New Jersey. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif


And to RonGianti and Atrocities, Thanks guys, I appreciate your kind words.

Now, back to the problem of North Korea…

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Oh [censored], I surrender!

Just please don't sic your "Joizy" wife on me, anything but that! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Keep it polite please. No personal attacks are called for in an open discussion. Please check the dark sarcasim at the door. Witty Sarcasim is ok, but please keep it neutral and not personal. THanks.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

No offense was meant by me, and none was taken.

I thought it was funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Muahaha, our evil plan is succeeding! You'll never see it coming! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Well, Bob & Doug did demonstrate an extended ability to survive underwater using beer bottles - no doubt quite useful for special ops infiltrations.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

No idea who those guys are.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

How can anyone not know Bob & Doug? Go rent Strange Brew, eh?

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Brew-R.../dp/B00006FDCT

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Do you think if we offered garanteed incentives to NK if they returned to the 6 party talks that they might do so? The object here would be to save face for all involved.

1. We would buy NK military equipment
2. We would provide humanitarn aid
3. We would give them the parts they needed in trade to fix and maintain their civilian air fleet.
4. We would trade or sell them low tech military gear such as vehicles but no arms.
5. Allow them to open an embassy in the US and recognize them in the UN.
6. Bring them into the world economy.

Some dude just won a Nobel Peace prize for his thoery that if you fight poverty in the world, you improve world peace.

What better way to end the NK problem than to tell KJI that hecan keep his power, his military, and way of life but in doing so we also get to help his people, country, and the region in general.

All he has to do is come to the six party talks and work out a deal. No more nukes and he gets to become a player.

Sure they will lie, but when they do this time, hell just buy the GD nukes from him and tell him that he is bad. ONce he gets a taste of economic success, he won't want to risk loosing it. Look at Lebenon. The ONLY reason that war ended was because they realized that it would hurt lebenon too much to continue it. Hats off to all involved there for ending the fighting.

China would want a strong economic NK because then, like they, the power would shift from might to wealth.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

I'm not at all optimistic. SK doesn't want NK to collapse because they inherit the mess if that happens. China doesn't want NK to collapse because hordes of starving refugees stream across their border if that happens. The US absolutely will not go to war with NK as long as they don't do something totally stupid (like nuke Japan or SK), due to lack of the necessary support from SK, China & the US citizenry. Kim knows all this, so he knows he can do whatever he wants (short of nuking Japan or SK) & the US will blah blah blah while China & SK prop him up.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Nice summary, Bill.

Sort of the modern politico-economic equivalent of that old axiom that goes,

"If you owe the bank $10,000 and you can't pay, you are in trouble. If you owe the bank $10,000,000, and you can't pay, the bank is in trouble."

My own views and concerns aside, I think those of you who are predicting that the UN/US will do nothing, are right on the money.

Just goes to show you, Douglas Macarthur was right all along.

Re: OT: A Nuclear North Korea
 

Yes & no...

If you mean bombing Manchuria (conventional or nuclear), probably not. However, the current situation does stem from our failure to apply the first rule of Jacksonian warmaking back in Mac's day. We should have mobilized whatever level of force it took - even a WWII-scale effort - to push the Chinese back across the Yalu. Then all of Korea would today be like SK, and we wouldn't have this problem at all. Odds are relations with China would be the same today, too.