 |
| |
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Cool combo, Sava. Ten thousand artillery pieces combined with nuclear weapons, all pointing in one southerly direction ... my, what has SK ever done to threaten NK? Last time I checked, it was NK armies that ravaged SK ... oh, yes, it's the big-bad United States. If we'd just leave, a united and peaceful Korea could be reborn from the ashes of division!
Gatekeeper   |
NK is not going to pre-emptively nuke SK. 
NK is sees SK as a US puppet regime. Perhaps you need to learn about the history of Korea and how they view any foreign powers meddling in their peninsula. They make no distinction between the Mongols, the Japanese of WW2, and the Americans.
In terms of leaving, I didn't comment on that. So don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Imran:
And that excludes him calling the shots? How?
I don't know how much influence he has, but your point says very little about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Q: What I meant is that essentially North Korea is being taken more seriously because it has become a nuclear power by its own admission, whether or not that’s true, and that the lesson that people will have is that in the case of Iraq it became imperative to confront Iraq militarily because it had banned weapons systems and posed a danger to the region. In the case of North Korea, which has nuclear weapons as well as other banned weapons of mass destruction, apparently it is imperative not to confront, to persuade and to essentially maintain a regime that is just as appalling as the Iraqi regime in place, for the sake of the stability of the region. To other countries of the world this is a very mixed message to be sending out.
Wolfowitz: The concern about implosion is not primarily at all a matter of the weapons that North Korea has, but a fear particularly by South Korea and also to some extent China of what the larger implications are for them of having 20 million people on their borders in a state of potential collapse and anarchy. It’s is also a question of whether, if one wants to persuade the regime to change, whether you have to find -- and I think you do -- some kind of outcome that is acceptable to them. But that outcome has to be acceptable to us, and it has to include meeting our non-proliferation goals.
Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different. |
from http://www.defenselink.mil/transcri...secdef0246.html
to cleare up the confusion...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2003 00:01
|