North Korea launched a long range missle.

[myboynoah]

Another Bushie, I see. After skimming through your non-response, I am wondering what your practical solution would be. You apparently agree that words are not enough. So, as I initially suggested, you want to invade.

How many guns do you own at home?

I found your '70s peacenik approach and repetition of Soviet propaganda too much to pass up. But who knows, times have changed. Maybe Obama's silver tongue will win the day (despite getting stiffed on his calls to our European allies for more economic stimulus at home and combat troops in Afghanistan). Here he is greeting King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.





I bet The Queen is pissed she got an iPod of Obama speeches instead of the waist deep bow.

iPod with Obama speeches - $250
Waist deep bow from POTUS - priceless

What would I do? Put together target packages for NoKorean missile and nuclear sites, then tell China we’re ready to take care of the problem if they aren't.

[TripletDaddy]

I found your '70s peacenik approach and repetition of Soviet propaganda too much to pass up. But who knows, times have changed. Maybe Obama's silver tongue will win the day (despite getting stiffed on his calls to our European allies for more economic stimulus at home and combat troops in Afghanistan). Here he is greeting King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.





I bet The Queen is pissed she got an iPod of Obama speeches instead of the waist deep bow.

iPod with Obama speeches - $250
Waist deep bow from POTUS - priceless

What would I do? Put together target packages for NoKorean missile and nuclear sites, then tell China we’re ready to take care of the problem if they aren't.

You are being disingenuous, labeling this as an Obama problem. KJI has been around for decades, attempting to develop nuclear technology. Bush didn't do anything about it. Neither did the rest of the world. Why is this a US issue? And what is the problem to take care of, exactly? That he launched a sattelite? Good luck getting international support for that one.

Your hypo supports my original contention. Bushies like to go in an invade countries. They are nation builders. At least you are honest about it, apparently.

PS nice strawman with the pics, btw. they are very relevant to our discussion here today.

[myboynoah]

You are being disingenuous, labeling this as an Obama problem. KJI has been around for decades, attempting to develop nuclear technology. Bush didn't do anything about it. Neither did the rest of the world. Why is this a US issue? And what is the problem to take care of, exactly? That he launched a sattelite? Good luck getting international support for that one.

Your hypo supports my original contention. Bushies like to go in an invade countries. They are nation builders. At least you are honest about it, apparently.

PS nice strawman with the pics, btw. they are very relevant to our discussion here today.

I'm not at all about invading, I'd just threaten to take out the capability sans effective Chinese intervention.

Actually, this is Obama's problem. He ran for and became President. He wanted the problem. It is his problem. I just hope he tries to stay upright throughout the whole thing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The difference between Israel and its neighbors is that whatever else Israel has done that is morally wrong, it has not sought to remove its neighbors from the map as political entities. Nor does it have on going policies and stated agendas that involve the destruction of any of its neighbors.

Except for the Palestinians in the occupied territories, of course.

But as to Israels nuclear program. You are aware, aren't you, that it was the French who provided the Israeli with both the technology and the uranium, correct? The USA didn't even find out about the program until 1958 when reconnaissance aircraft took photos of construction of the nuclear facility and that it was two years before it was confirmed to be such? I'm not sure why Israel's nuclear capability is being laid the the feet of the USA by you and others in this thread. I think there are some uninformed assumptions there.

However Israels capability came about, it has had nukes since the 1960s and how many times had it used or even threatened to use them for offensive purposes? They are a deterrent only and no one at this juncture can say with a straight face that they fear a first strike from Israel with the possible exception of one nation who is developing its own program and whose leaders keep saying they want to use them ands also say they desire to wipe Israel from the map.

Do you honestly believe that the US intelligence knew nothing about the weapons development by Israel? And do you honestly believe that they would have made a big effort to stop them had they known? Most Americans think it is great for Israel to have nukes. If we are going to preach non-proliferation then we should be consistent. It makes you more credible.

[SteelBlue]

Has anyone answered DDD's question yet? If words aren't enough then what is?

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not at all about invading, I'd just threaten to take out the capability sans effective Chinese intervention.

Actually, this is Obama's problem. He ran for and became President. He wanted the problem. It is his problem. I just hope he tries to stay upright throughout the whole thing.

The Chinese are not overly involved right now, as I am sure you know. I think they have stopped short of citing any actual violations as a result of the missile launch.

Given that China isn't going to help out (at least not currently), let's explore your solution a bit. You would "threaten" NoKo? What's that about? Threaten them with invasion? Let's have some specifics.

Also, I agree that currently, it is Obama's problem. It appeared that you were categorizing Obama's call for a rebuke to as unique to his administration, whereas other administrations would have taken care of business asap. Isn't Obama simply following the playbook? First response is to rebuke and condemn?

I would figure that as a country, we would be slow to jump to conclusions about the nuclear activities of enemy nations. We tried that with Iraq and it didn't go so well.

I think SeattleUte is right. We overestimate the abilities of some of these banana republics. Does NoKo even have the intellectual capital and facilities to develop these weapons? We were told Iraq did, then when we got there, we found a bunch of empty vans and metal tubes. I think we are still looking for those WMD.

[UtahDan]

No, it does not.

But it doesn't mean that they are, either. You could simply be paranoid.

I'll go with the UN's resolution, assuming that they have access to better data than you. Admittedly, we could all be wrong, though, and you could be right.

For clarity's sake, what is your point on this issue? Your initial post implies that rebuke is insufficient and military action is necessary. When pressed on it, you seem to back off somewhat, saying that you wish China would do something about it because you don't think the US could collectively get behind the notion of military intervention. So is your bottom line that we need military intervention in North Korea? We need to send in troops, topple the regime, and engage in nation building? I guess I am trying to see where you were going with your initial post. If you want to get rid of that regime, just say so. On CUF, unlike in Bush's White House, we DO engage in nation building. At least hypothetically so.

It is just what it appears to be. A statement of frustration. Talk is what we will do because it is all we really can do. If you read something more into the initial comment than that then you may have inferred something I didn't intend to insinuate.

What data does the UN have that you are relying on? Maybe I missed something. I don't think it is the data that anyone really disputes. It is the intentions of KJI. And who knows what his intentions are. But we don't have the capability to pull off a regime change in NK even if we wanted to. I will say this, however, though it is neither here nor there: if people believe that the problems we have had in Iraq definitively end the argument about whether nation building is possible, they have learned the wrong lesson. I believe it would actually be successful in NK for the reasons it was in Japan and Germany. Iraq is a whole other ball of twine. But NK has a lot in common with 1945 Japan.

We will never build a nation in Afghanistan, by the way, though that is what we seem to be shifting our focus to. Iraq is an infinitely easier place to accomplish that.

[UtahDan]

I think SeattleUte is right. We overestimate the abilities of some of these banana republics. Does NoKo even have the intellectual capital and facilities to develop these weapons? We were told Iraq did, then when we got there, we found a bunch of empty vans and metal tubes. I think we are still looking for those WMD.

This is dangerous thinking. Iraq is about as representative of international relations as the OJ Simpson trial was of the legal system. We were wrong about Iraq, ergo, evidence that points to other third world dictators developing WMD capability must also be incorrect? A little bit too small of a sample size to conclude that IMO.

[myboynoah]

The Chinese are not overly involved right now, as I am sure you know. I think they have stopped short of citing any actual violations as a result of the missile launch.

Given that China isn't going to help out (at least not currently), let's explore your solution a bit. You would "threaten" NoKo? What's that about? Threaten them with invasion? Let's have some specifics.

Also, I agree that currently, it is Obama's problem. It appeared that you were categorizing Obama's call for a rebuke to as unique to his administration, whereas other administrations would have taken care of business asap. Isn't Obama simply following the playbook? First response is to rebuke and condemn?

I would figure that as a country, we would be slow to jump to conclusions about the nuclear activities of enemy nations. We tried that with Iraq and it didn't go so well.

I think SeattleUte is right. We overestimate the abilities of some of these banana republics. Does NoKo even have the intellectual capital and facilities to develop these weapons? We were told Iraq did, then when we got there, we found a bunch of empty vans and metal tubes. I think we are still looking for those WMD.

The point of threatening military action against NoKorea is to push the Chinese to action. China likes a NoKorea; a nice little buffer from U.S. troops in SoKorea. China should want NoKorea to continue on as an entity for a long time. Hence, anything that might threaten NoKorea, upsets that status quo. I’d like to provide them motivation to get NoKorea to play ball. In essence, the threat is against China, not NoKorea.

I would only threaten to take out missile and nuclear weapons sites. I suspect cruise missiles would suffice. No need for an invasion.

NoKorea’s nuclear capability is fairly well known, even weaponization. A simple search of the Internet should suffice. This isn’t Iraq, where much of the intelligence was old or single source. Even then, no one suggested Iraq had nuclear weapons (thanks to Israel). The perceived threat was the presence of chemical and/or biological weapons and the intent to develop a nuclear capability.

SU’s example is interesting in that true, the Soviet technology was old by our standards. For instance, they were still using vacuum tubes. However, those that examined the aircraft acknowledged that they were the most advanced vacuum tubes they had seen. In other words, the older technology was sufficient to meet the requirements of the system. Lest we forget, the Soviets put the first man in space.

One of the greatest intelligence blunders of the last 50 years was assuming that Pakistan was too backward, that it didn’t possess the know how to develop a nuclear capability. Have you been to Pakistan? Even today it would be very easy to make this assumption. Big surprise

[byu71]

The only thing I know is if a nuke goes off somewhere in the world, it will be our fault.

All the worlds problems are really our fault. We use too much of the worlds resources, we pollute too much of the world's air, we have too much of the world's wealth, we don't have enough repsect for the Europeans intellect, we worry too much about someone attacking us.

We need to stop worrying and whining. I suggest we do away with all of our nukes, tax the rich at 80% and just see what happens.

[myboynoah]

The only thing I know is if a nuke goes off somewhere in the world, it will be our fault.

All the worlds problems are really our fault. We use too much of the worlds resources, we pollute too much of the world's air, we have too much of the world's wealth, we don't have enough repsect for the Europeans intellect, we worry too much about someone attacking us.

We need to stop worrying and whining. I suggest we do away with all of our nukes, tax the rich at 80% and just see what happens.

You forgot to mention that we are arrogant.

[UtahDan]

Except for the Palestinians in the occupied territories, of course.

Quite right. I did forget about Israel removing the nation of Palestine from the map. In fact, does anyone remember that?

Do you honestly believe that the US intelligence knew nothing about the weapons development by Israel? And do you honestly believe that they would have made a big effort to stop them had they known? Most Americans think it is great for Israel to have nukes. If we are going to preach non-proliferation then we should be consistent. It makes you more credible.

Of course we know about it and we have turned a blind eye because we think it is good for them to have them. It deters yet another war against them.

Look Jeff, the moral high ground has nothing to do with anything in international relations. It is all about power. What you can do, what you can't do. Capabilities. Strong nations exercise power in a more naked way at times, but at other times talk morality, etc. But whatever they do, they do it to try to bring about some desirable end and utilize whatever utensil is best adapted to that job. Weak nations spend a lot of time talking about the right and wrong of things because their best chance of getting what they want is to persuade the population of the stronger state that it is "right."

Is that cynical? Sure, but every nation is. Not one country gets into any agreement, or stays in one, when it is against their interest to do so. That is us and everyone else. So if the argument goes anywhere near the idea that we should do right because it will inspire others to do right, that is really naive.

Now, if you want to argue that we should reign in Israel because that would enhance our power because it would increase our standing and make other nations more likely to also disarm, that is more tenable but equally incorrect. The simple reason is that no matter what we do with respect to Israel, the other middle eastern nations are STILL going to do whatever they think is in their best interest to do. Take away all of Israels nukes tomorrow (which by the way is a pipe dream, we could take every penny from them and they would not give those up, there is some additional naivitee in the notion that we control them) and Iran has more incentive to develop its own capability, not less. In other words, even if you are not as cynical as I am and you believe that the world would give us a big round of applause and lots of style points for stopping proliferation in Israel, you are nuts if you think it would motivate them to do the same. It just wouldn't. It is also worth pointing out that Israel is not a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and had its capability well in place when treaty was signed, so, we're not really talking about proliferation. We are talking about something that predates that notion.

[TripletDaddy]

The only thing I know is if a nuke goes off somewhere in the world, it will be our fault.

I agree with you.

Esp since this has already happened. Twice. And they were both ours. We detonated them.

[byu71]

I agree with you.

Esp since this has already happened. Twice. And they were both ours. We detonated them.

Yep, we should have after the attack on Pearl Harbor sent a message to the Japanese and send, you guys are a hell of a lot tougher than we thought.

I know we must have pissed you off to make you smack us around like that. What is it you would like us to do.

Instead we went off and declared war on them. That was a democrat as President too. I don't know if there are the right kind of leaders in America to help us realize when people get pissed at us and do something violent, we probably caused them to act that way.

Maybe Obama can help us be a more submissive nation.

[TripletDaddy]

Yep, we should have after the attack on Pearl Harbor sent a message to the Japanese and send, you guys are a hell of a lot tougher than we thought.

I know we must have pissed you off to make you smack us around like that. What is it you would like us to do.

Instead we went off and declared war on them. That was a democrat as President too. I don't know if there are the right kind of leaders in America to help us realize when people get pissed at us and do something violent, we probably caused them to act that way.

Maybe Obama can help us be a more submissive nation.

Who wants to be submissive? Nobody is saying that the US can't dominate the paint.

The hypocrisy is in telling another country to not make even a single bomb. Not even a bomb, but the long-range missile technology that would be used to carry a bomb (as well as a satellite). We have thousands of them and we are the only ones in history (so far) to use them in war. Yet these other countries are the danger.

You seem to have enrolled in the MyBoahNoah School of Obama Strawmen. The pics of the deep bow were funny, admittedly. What was he doing in those pics? Isn't that where his State Department guy is supposed to be helping him?