I'm not sure if anyone has read about this; but its the perfect metaphor for N Korea. I'll quote a little of it. There is a forum someplace, where a tourist took pictures of this building (when he wasn't supposed to) and you could see the birds nesting in it and what an eyesore it was. Anyways...some good parts of the article: I think this says it all about NK. The electrical grid I posted yesterday; this; the failed nukes; the off target missiles. I've read a lot about the NK army lately and how well dug in they are. If everyone is starving; how well dug can they be? How well trained? How useful? Lots of questions.
N Korea is a dangerous renegade place. Even w/ poverty, famine, etc. it has a huge army, thousands of missles aimed at SK, longer range rockets and now some level of nuclear ability--even w/ minimal capability. It could strike out if desperate. It can work to sell its weapon and nuclear capabilities to terrorists. Striking it militarily would probably unleash its military on S Korea and it has too many missles not to be devastating in some capacity. That map of the electric grid shows enormous activity just south of the demilitarized zone in S Korea. To date no strategy has worked to put constraints on N Korea. Neither Clinton or Bush have been successful in restraining N K. It would seem we need lots of help from the Chinese to try and restrain them...and to date we don't work well w/the Chinese on finding tight mutual areas of agreement. here's hoping we make progress in that regard.
I think that's just Seoul and the probable surrounding minor cities. Seoul is in that general area someplace.
Sanctions against NK: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/world/main2089640.shtml The North Korea ambassador walked out of the UN counsel session, which prompted Bolton to bring up Chapter 2 of the UN resolution (essentially threatening to have its membership revoked). Heh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ban is completely unenforceable because it specifically precludes the use of searches. So, we have to take the North Koreans word that they aren't shipping any more missiles to Iran. How sane does that sound?
good question. This is not an official source of the report but an excerpt from a CBS news report on the resolution; I highlighted sections having to do with inspections and the voluntary nature of the sanctions.
I don't believe this is a tough sanction. Inspections are voluntary. Send a ship to Iran with missles. Who is going to check it? Send stuff through China....who says they are going to check it. Based on this....if I'm Iran I don't worrry about UN sanctions.
I'd have to see the resolution. It says the language was softened, but doesn't say (in this report) that searches are not allowed. You are right, though, that its unenforceable. If NK was shipping out missiles or whatever, all it'd have to do was find the Chinese blockade ship *wink wink* no missiles there and it's all good. Guess this is typical for the UN. I believe it also specifically rules out military action, too.
I think this pokes another hole in the Bush "tough guy" anti terrorism/anti axis of evil strategy. Bolton's quote: If the UN resolution is clearly not enforceable it is a bs piece of paper that N K can get around without problems. Other nations will see that immediately. Frankly, I don't see Bush making us safer at all. Following his 2002 State of the Union speach when he declared an axis of evil comprised of N Korea, Iraq, and Iran we have the following: N Korea has tested some kind of nuclear weapon (albeit probably not strong) Iran has a nuclear enrichment program going. We attacked Iraq and found out they didn't have WPM and now have a brgeoning civil war that is exploding and our troops are sitting there getting shot at, ambushed, etc. without a clear plan for taking steps to ensure our safety against further terrorism. And that is just a minimal description of consequences. Where is the beef?
Is it your position that bush putting Iran and NK in the axis of evil made them evil? Is that your point?
I think Bush defined a group of enemies (the axis of evil) has declared his administration to be the only effective source to best defend America, has attacked those within the country that disagree with him, and has been unsuccessful at minimizing terrorist threats, as he defined them. Since 9/11 the US shores have not been attacked by terrorists. That is a success. As Bush, and his administration says; We have to be correct 100% of the time. They only have to be correct once. That is a tough situation for us to deal with but is an accurate assessment. In terms of quelling terrorism around the world, it appears, per the NIE, that terrorism and numbers of terrorists are growing. One aspect of that appears to be the war in Iraq. That is not good. Iran and N Korea were nations diametrically opposed to American and Western governments before and contine to be opposed. But his efforts have neither stopped N Korea from developing nuclear weapons, nor Iran from moving closer to that. I don't see how he can claim to have the answers on making America safer and go on attacking those in the states who disagree with him.
And who has those answers? Think Kerry (who wants unilateral talks with NK) has those answers? Hillary? Gimme someone who has better ideas and what they are.
earlpearl: That argument is like blaming Roosevelt for increased violence from the Axis powers after 7 December, 1941. Of course there is increased violence, we stepped up the tempo of the war. That's what it takes to win a war, fighting. When you start fighting back, the enemy has to try harder. When WWII was finally won, there was less violence from all Axis powers. When the current war is finally won, there will be less violence from all Islamists. Or, the entirely of Western Civilization will be living in subjugation. My money is on us winning, but nothing is ever a certaintly in war.
Admittedly and honestly I don't know who has great ideas that I would believe in (or better yet) would work on our behalf. Neither democrats or republicans who disagree with Bush or question current policy have ideas that have gathered tremendous support. Even Senator Warner spoke in unhappiness about conditions in Iraq, but didn't provide an alternative suggestion. I would hope that a first step is a change in control of one house in Congress or both. That would force greater questioning of current policy and an effort to look at more alternatives. I'll spend more time looking at suggested solutions or alternatives...but I don't have those answers now, or am aware of who is throwing out best alternatives.
You know what I love? Complaining about current policy but not offering any alternatives. Mindless carping rocks! I'll save you time, Earlpearl. Here are the democrat alternatives In Iraq: Leave and say fuck it. (The Murtha argument) Stay with the current plan. I think more troops should be put there, but its not gonna happen. Politics. *shrug* On NK: One on one talks (rewarding bad behavior). I think we should impose a unilateral (or with Japan) complete blockade that we can enforce, inspect any and all ships out of NK. On Iran: I dunno what they are. Do they even talk about it? I'd be for putting special forces in there and causing a minor -eh- meltdown at one of their nuclear facilities. I think that'd be enough to take down that regime.
Neither right nor wrong. Eisenhower essentially ended the Korean war as a truce. From what I know he assessed the size and scope of Chinese/Korean forces and determined that continued fighting would be too costly. Each war is different.