Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 16
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021016/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_north_korea_8

North Korea has told the United States it has a secret nuclear weapons program

Well, it ain't secret any more ;-) :-(

So, are we now going to put the war with Iraq on hold and have a war with North Korea instead? If not, why not? Don't tell me, they ain't Arabic and therefore don't support Al-Qaeda...

-synchronicity
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, are we now going to put the war with Iraq on hold and have a war with North Korea instead?

"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." "

GWB
10-7-2002

--
whyohwhyoh

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
no, becasue the leader of North Korea isn't a madman.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
no, becasue the leader of North Korea isn't a madman.

Okay, we've seen this sentiment twice now, in two different threads.

So I'll ask the question:

What evidence is there that suggests that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, insane?

Curious again,

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I'll ask the question:

What evidence is there that suggests that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, insane?


"...who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."

GWB
10-7-2002

--
whyohwhyoh



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I asked:

What evidence is there that suggests that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, insane?

Y-O-Y-O replied:

"...who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."

I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. All too many dictators have killed thousands of people, and I find it hard to accept that killing people with conventional, rather than chemical, weapons is a signifying determinant of sanity.

As for invading/occupying smaller neighbors...heck, what regional power hasn't done that from time to time? Hiya, Grenada!

And if holding an unrelenting hostility towards the United States was a sign of insanity, there wouldn't be enough sanitariums in the world to hold all the patients.

I'm willing to accept the first two as signs of being...well, evil for lack of a better word. However, being evil is not the same as being insane - or at least, I don't think so.

So I ask again - has anyone really studied whether Iraq's leading vote-getter is certifiable, or just a very evil man?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone"

Stands alone with many possibilities, maybes and much speculation, but no immediate dangers as Korea, Pakistan and the Saudis have exhibited.

"Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people."

Many of them were his own people using intelligence information provided by the US.

"This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East"

Really? When was that, in Kuwait?

"has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning"

Aren't you talking about one case? You act as if it happened many times. We knew many months in advance of a possible take over of Kuwait. We assisted in Iraqs war on Iran and today make a lot of lame excuse along with a lot of unfounded speculation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"So I ask again - has anyone really studied whether Iraq's leading vote-getter is certifiable, or just a very evil man?"

Has it ever dawned on you that the people chanting the same rhetoric over and over are not much different than the people that hate the US? The chanting is the same, only the wording changes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I ask again - has anyone really studied whether Iraq's leading vote-getter is certifiable, or just a very evil man?

Albaby, you might be interested in a thread I started over in Mishedlo.

Please present evidence that, in addition to being a bad man, Saddam Hussein is a mad man.
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17836691

The thread includes a highly rec'd rant from TMFOtter:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17839412

And (in a new thread) my rejoinder:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17840700

Note that the first piece of evidence that Otter sited was this:

Want evidence Saddam's a madman? Fine. He would rather submit his people, of whom -- if the statistics are to be believed -- millions have died, to crushing sanctions than to allow weapons inspectors to watch his programs.

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Want evidence Saddam's a madman? Fine. He would rather submit his people, of whom -- if the statistics are to be believed -- millions have died, to crushing sanctions than to allow weapons inspectors to watch his programs."

This is probably true for most dictators.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
So, are we now going to put the war with Iraq on hold and have a war with North Korea instead? If not, why not?

No, because NK doesn't have oil.

Erik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
no, becasue the leader of North Korea isn't a madman. 

How do you know ?

b2w
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
<< What evidence is there that suggests that Saddam Hussein is, in fact, insane? >>

"...who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."


As opposed to North Korea, which has:

A) Abducted 13 Japanese nationals between 1977 and 1983 and kept them in North Korea until very recently as part of an "espionage program" (apparently to use these people to learn more about Japanese culture, therefore making it easier for North Korean spies to operate in Japan). Does this sound sane to you?

B) is led by Kim Jong Il, son and heir of the only other leader of North Korea, the late Kim Il Sung who was declared "President For Eternity" in the country's Constitution. Does this sound "sane" to you?

C) has suffered through tremendous famines in the late 90's, reportedly killing millions of North Koreans (nobody is really sure exactly how many, because North Korea has remained such a secretive, insular society), while devoting about 35% of their economy towards their military. That's a greater percentage of deaths in the population than have occurred in Iraq since the Gulf War from food and medicine shortages, and a greater percentage of the North Korean economy directed to the military than Saddam ever spent, both of which are rather difficult (and spectacularly dubious) accomplishments.

D) as we all know, North Korea tried to invade South Korea and "dominate" the peninsula. That war was never officially "ended", we just have a "truce" in effect, hence the strong military presence along the border of those two nations. Until very recently North Korea showed no signs of abandoning that goal and has continued aggressive actions towards the South.

E) on the subject of possible delivery systems for WMD (i.e., "missiles") North Korea reportedly has developed missiles with ranges of up to 1,300 kilometers (that's just over 800 miles), which is a far greater reach than any missiles developed by Iraq.

F) although Iraq is "suspected" of, or might "possibly" distribute weapons technology to rogue nations or groups, North Korea reportedly HAS sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, Syria, and Libya, all of which are countries the State Department lists as "supporters of terrorism".(Interestingly enough, the US has not stated or implied that North Korea has sold any such technology to Iraq).

G) With regards to actual WMD's, specifically nuclear weapons (since so many people have said "what'll it take to convince you, a mushroom cloud over NYC?"), all reports are that Iraq is trying to obtain nuclear weapons material (specifically enriched uranium), and that IF Iraq were to obtain sufficient quantities, they MIGHT be able to have a nuclear weapon within 12 months. Otherwise (and as GWB himself said in that same address that's been quoted) Iraq will likely have nuclear capability by the end of the decade.

By contrast, the consensus of US intelligence since the early 90's or so has been that North Korea ALREADY possesses sufficient fissile material for at least one or two nuclear weapons, and in a recent speech SecDef Rumsfeld stated that the North Koreans "has been aggressively developing nuclear weapons and have nuclear weapons". Combine these statements with North Koreas recent admission that they have been running a "secret" nuclear program (not that we haven't suspected exactly that for a long time), and methinks we have a problem here.

H) Risk to US interests? Sure, Iraq threatens other nations in the oil rich Persian Gulf, although we're not really good friends with most of these nations (oops, forgot about our "good friends" the Saudis). Iraq does present a threat with their missiles to Israel (a strong ally of the US), as well.

However, there are 37,000 US troops stationed in South Korea, ALL of whom are obviously at risk to North Korean WMD's. Also, North Korean missiles mentioned above have sufficient range to hit South Korea as well as most of Japan. If one wanted to wreak an economic catastrophe on the industrialized world, I'd say that any direct attacks on the world's third largest economy (Japan, behind the US and China per the CIA world factbook) would be very serious. (While we're at it, South Korea has the world's 13th largest economy, roughly equal to Canada).

So, here we have a "rogue nation" that has consistently acted aggressively towards its neighbors, that is by all reports, an evil, totalitarian regime dominated by one leader of questionable rationality, that has sold ballistic missile technology to nations that support terrorism, that currently possesses both ballistic delivery systems AND WMD technology that can strike US allies in the region and could be devastating in its impacts. And what, you might ask, is the US response to all this:

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021016/wnkore/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
[White House Spokesman]"Mr. McCormack said the United States is consulting with it allies, South Korea and Japan, and with members of Congress on next steps.

"We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation," Mr. McCormack said. "Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation [sic] want to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."
[emphasis added].

And also this quote from CNN:

"Nevertheless, the Bush administration intends to keep talking with North Korea and does not intend to put discussions about disarming North Korea on hold, the administration source said. "It's not a show stopper," [again, emphasis added].

Look, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy (but hey, he did win the recent Iraqi "election", running unopposed on the catchy campaign slogan of "Vote for me or I'll torture you and kill your entire family"), but doesn't anyone else notice a wee bit of inconsistency in the US posture towards nuclear armed, long range ballistic missile equipped, salesman of technology to terrorists North Korea, and our posture towards Iraq?

-synchronicity

PS- re: gassing their own people, I don't believe North Korea has done that on a systemic basis, only because I don't believe any groups have risen up to challenge the authority of the regime. All North Korea does is keep several hundred thousand people as "political prisoners", some taken as children, and all subject to torture and myriad other human rights abuses. Swell guys, eh? Well, at least they're part of the "Axis of Evil".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
synchronicity, it would seem that you have made a good case that it is actually Kim Jong Il who is the "world's worst leader with the world's worst weapons." Intercontinental missiles as well.

So how long before Bush & co. is planning the invasion of North Korea?

Peter

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the quote from GWB, whyohwhyo.

"The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." " (my emphasis)

So....maybe instead of bombing the "madman" (since there seems to be some doubt about this diagnosis) we should simply try to get him in a
12 Step Program?????

Jack
(who is wary of those who are addicted to purging the world of EVIL)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
North Korea has told the United States it has a secret nuclear weapons program

Someone tell me again about how we just need to leave ol' Saddam alone? We should just attempt some more inspections and keep talking?

"Under a 1994 agreement with the United States, North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it promised to allow inspections to verify that it did not have the material needed to construct such weapons.

But it has yet to allow the inspections..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2002Oct16.html

Hey, they promised! That's not fair! But we can trust ol' Saddam, right?

Of course when he invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and holds the greater part of the world's oil supplies hostage we'll have to make a choice - pay the ransom or watch the sand glow in the dark.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
webwide, assuming you are in agreement with Bush & co., would you please explain why we should not send inspectors into Iraq ASAP?

Also note that North Korea is explicitly refusing inspections.

Peter



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Someone tell me again about how we just need to leave ol' Saddam alone? We should just attempt some more inspections and keep talking?

"Under a 1994 agreement with the United States, North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons program, and it promised to allow inspections to verify that it did not have the material needed to construct such weapons.

But it has yet to allow the inspections..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2002Oct16.html

Hey, they promised! That's not fair! But we can trust ol' Saddam, right?


Hey, we STILL don't seem to have a problem with North Korea, even after EIGHT YEARS of no inspections (in fact, there was never even a START to inspections). Heck, we're looking for a "peaceful solution" there.

By contrast, Iraq is making statements about allowing inspections ("without restrictions" except for a few restrictions, of course ;-) ), which is just another sign that those damn Iraqis are being intransigent.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure the Iraqis will try and pull all kinds of...er, shtuff to impede inspections. But fer cryin' out loud, why is it that we have to attack NOW, before even trying inspections (which, in spite of Iraqi obstruction in the past, still accomplished quite a bit), and without the support of any major country other than Great Britain, whereas North Korea, which has never allowed ANY inspections of any type and have far more advanced WMD and ballistic missile programs; well, for them we'll have "discussions" to reach a "peaceful resolution" to the matter.

Heck, back in '91/'92, after the Gulf War ended, when we still had a substantial military presence in the Gulf and Iraq was pulling their crap regarding inspections, our main response was to send strongly worded letters to the UN and Iraq showing our disapproval. Yeah, I know that was before 9/11, which apparently makes a huge difference with Iraq, but somehow doesn't give any urgency to North Korea.

-synchronicity

(apparently the "Axis of Evil" has an "inner circle")
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
no, becasue the leader of North Korea isn't a madman.

Unfortunately, not exactly the case. He is considered by many to be unstable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Apparently, you are advocating the United States adopt a "one-size fits all" foreign policy in which different countries, different cultures and different situations are all handled the same way. This seems to be at odds with your general political leanings, but perhaps your grasp on internation relations isn't quite as good as that of the Bush administration.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure the Iraqis will try and pull all kinds of...er, shtuff to impede inspections. But fer cryin' out loud, why is it that we have to attack NOW, before even trying inspections.

You should be aware that we've been 'trying' inspections for the past 10 years. You should also be aware that we are not attacking now, Bush has called on Iraq to readmit inspectors. Unconditionally. Anything else is a non-starter, which any sane, rational person not given to reflexive Bush bashing acknowledges is the only way inspections have any chance of being effective. Saddam has had years to comply, years to negotiate. The time for negotiations is over. Admit inspectors, or we will kill you. What is wrong with this policy?

MM

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, are we now going to put the war with Iraq on hold and have a war with North Korea instead?


I wouldn't expect a war with North Korea unless somebody strikes oil above the 38th parallel.

Cheeze
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
So, are we now going to put the war with Iraq on hold and have a war with North Korea instead? If not, why not? Don't tell me, they ain't Arabic and therefore don't support Al-Qaeda...

No, the point of replacing Saddam and forcing Iraq to comply with UN resolutions to destroy the WMD is to prevent their growing as dangerous as North Korea claims to be. The first thing to do with North Korea is to determine the validity of the claim.

I keep thinking back to Carter's trip to North Korea and proclaiming a way to peace had been found. All they wanted in return for peace was a nuclear power plant. Carter got Clinton to agree; and war was averted. Now 6 years later, North Korea claims to be nuclear capable.

Appeasment and negotiation don't seem to be working as well as claimed.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I wouldn't expect a war with North Korea unless somebody strikes oil above the 38th parallel.

OK, these oil references are ridiculous. Did you stop to think, just for a second, how stupid it would be to press a war just for the sake of *acquisition* of Iraqi oil?

For heaven's sake, the US could dominate the Iraqi oil market in 1 hour without firing a single shot. Ready?

The US drops its pressing of the UN sanctions against Iraq. Why, if oil were really, really the issue, why would we do it any other way? That's what France has done, that's what Russia has done. They've just ignored the sanctions. Is there any doubt in your mind that the country with the most highly capitalized, most highly advanced oil extraction industry in the world is the United States?

Yes, we are more interested in the Middle East due to oil. Are you saying that's a bad thing? But the truly mercenary decision here would not be to fight Iraq over oil, it would be to ignore Iraq's threat for the SAKE of its oil. Really, I know it seems like a really clever political snipe and all to jam the Bush presidency over oil, but that doesn't fit reality. Plain and simple, there are significantly deeper reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power than oil. His continued existence IN NO WAY prevents us from accessing all of the Iraqi oil we would want.

I don't care if you disagree with the prinicples involved with a regime change in Iraq. But quit acting as if they don't exist, because this "oil, oil, oil" mantra just doesn't hold up to even minimal logical reasoning.

It would be so much easier just to act like the remainder of the world and just play "mercenary". When Bosnia was burning and Muslims were being led to slaughter by the thousand our oh-so-enlightened European friends did NOTHING until the US stepped in. Ridiculous to look to them for moral turpitude or support to do what is right, simply because it is so. They have none, and to wit are actively breaking UN (not US) sanctions on Iraq that they themselves voted into place and pledged to uphold.

As an aside, my senior thesis from undergrad was on the nuclear weapons program in North Korea. Once upon a time we had IAEA inspectors at Yongbyon, a nuclear plant that had built right inside of it a spent fuel plutonium extraction facility. The IAEA set up cameras, they'd suddenly go out for hours at a time. This was a decade ago, and yet we are STUNNED today to hear that, indeed, North Korea has continued its quest for nuclear weapons.

Sounds like an indictment on the ability of inspections to achieve anything in the face of a regime determined to develop nukes, if you ask me.

Again, never mind, let's wait for "proof". I'm sure Saddam will eventually come out and say it, just like Kim Jong-il did, more than a decade into their quest. After all, with all those oil revenues pouring in from Europe, he's sure to have the economic desperation that the North Koreans do now, right? The first idea we had that our buddies India and Pakistan were anywhere close was when they tested their weapons. When that happens it is just too late.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
webwide, assuming you are in agreement with Bush & co., would you please explain why we should not send inspectors into Iraq ASAP?

ummmm........because it is a farcical delaying tactic that hasn't proven effective for over a decade now?
Print the post Back To Top