Which country is the greatest threat ?

[Craig]

See poll choices.

My vote goes to the USA.

Edit : Yeah, I know the EU is not a country, but in the interest of having more viable choices and the 10-item poll limit I listed it here.

Damn, I forgot Israel. I wonder if any of the mods have the capability of say changing "Saudi Arabia" to "Israel".

[rakovlam]

I chose N Korea because Iraq will not be a threat any longer. When you got a country that builds nukes rather than feed its people, it's obvious they're making a threat.

[pfc beansprout]

...chose usa <_<

[lethal]

Japan is a threat to world peace?

Japan, the country with no offensive military? :confused:

[mizkisses]

i chose usa because everybody hates us. and if they didn't hate us, everything would be spiffy.

did i just say spiffy...

[MellowDrama]

US - the greatest threat and the greatest hope.

[angel nympho]

I picked USA. But I don't think we're the greatest threat. I think we're the greatest POTENTIAL threat.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Jan 12 2003, 03:35 PM
Japan, the country with no offensive military? :confused:
Yeah but they've got all those cool Robotech planes, right? :ph34r:

I chose USA...

[mizkisses]

weird, everybody is choosing USA..

[achtungbaby]

I don't think it's weird. There are legitimate, growing concerns that our Administration is going to go out of control in their fight against evil, with no particular end in sight.

[mizkisses]

like i said, we suck and everybody hates us.

i amuse myself with the stupid things the guy in charge of this country says. mwuhahahaha...have you ever searched the net for "george w. bush's stupid quotes"? seriously..if you just type "bush" "stupid" and "quotes" you get like a million gazillion bazillion trillion websites.

but yah...usa. big potential threat.

[iris]

Which country is the greatest threat to....world peace? democracy? world domination?

I think N. Korea is the greatest threat to the prevention of nuclear war and the international nuclear weapons treaty. I also think they could potentially bring about much tension and strife in international roles and responsibilities, especially those regarding U.N. checks and balances on a country's defense/offense programs.

According to this week's Newsweek, Times Asia, and The Economist, North Korea is now the greatest threat not only to the U.S.A., but to the world with the new re-opening of their nuclear weapons facility in Pyongyang. The dangerous game they're also playing with the U.N., doesn't help any. President Kim Jong Il is an unstable ruler who seems to have Napoleanic tendencies of grandeur.

N. Korea accuses U.S. of lying, threatens 'sea of fire'
By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY

SEOUL, South Korea ¡X North Korea denied Sunday that it had ever confessed to pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program, and it threatened to let loose a "sea of fire" on the United States.


N. Korea Threatens to Resume Missile Tests

By Peter S. Goodman and Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A01

The actions by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il may frighten Japan and South Korea into developing their own missile arsenals, the experts said. That in turn would provoke China to beef up its nuclear and missile strength. "This is really serious business," said Kim Tae Woo, a nuclear policy specialist at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a research organization affiliated with the South Korean Defense Ministry. "It would mean more nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia, more missiles and more possibilities for conflict. And when there is conflict, the damage would be increased."

Among the worst outcomes feared by the United States and its allies is the prospect that North Korea -- already a leading missile exporter -- would expand into a new product line, distributing nuclear warheads to anyone willing to pay. "We see a country that is designing and selling its ballistic missiles around the world," said an American diplomat. "We see a country that might export nuclear weapons."


I'd consider N. Korea very dangerous because of the slippery slope of nuclear weapons creation and acquirement they might inititate.

[SunWuKong]

i voted north korea too.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Korea to resume missile tests, calls for 'holy war'
Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea called for a "holy war against the United States" today and declared it was ready to resume missile tests and may start reprocessing spent fuel rods from its nuclear reactor to make atomic bombs.

One day after the communist North announced it was quitting an anti-nuclear pact, government leaders staged a rally in Pyongyang to declare they would seek "revenge with blood" toward any country that violates their sovereignty.

A crowd of 1 million people -- neatly packed into the capital's main plaza, adorned with anti-American banners and huge portraits of President Kim Jong Il -- erupted in chants and pumped fists toward the winter sky, shouting in unison, "We wholeheartedly support it!"

The hostile rhetoric and threats to resume nuclear programs were likely to increase tensions as a chorus of international condemnation grew toward the North's withdrawal from the 1968 pact limiting the spread of atomic weapons.

New tests would be the first since 1998, when North Korea fired a missile over Japan into the Pacific. Pyongyang later imposed a moratorium on tests which was to last into 2004. But the North's ambassador to China, Choe Jin Su, said today that tests could resume if the United States doesn't take steps to improve relations.

"Because all agreements have been nullified by the United States side, we believe we cannot go along with the self-imposed missile moratorium any longer," Choe said in Beijing.



more... (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory/1732598)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sure the US is provoking NK. but if anybody's going to fire a nuclear warhead first, i think it would be NK.

[thaite]

Israel.

[iris]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 02:08 PM
I voted the USA, because it's the root of threats created by US diplomatic rhetoric, foreign policies, and past supports of dictatorial leaders. Thanks to Bush's ever so eloquent words for North Korea as a member of the "Axis of Evil", he has accomplished in wiping out a nuclear-free Korean pennisula agreement and the "Sunshine Policy" - President Kim Dae Jung's vision for a brighter future for all Koreans by a policy of engagement toward North Korea.
Bush's words did not "wipe out a nuclear-fee Korean peninsula," and I seriously doubt it had any affect on N. Korea's decision to re-introduce nuclear weapons building to Pyongyang. If anything, Kim Jong Il is using the phrase as an excuse to gather power. It's not unprecedented terrain. A decade ago, N. Korea announced it would pull out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty before it settled a last-minute compromise with the United States.

"It's a typical North Korean negotiating strategy," said Kim Sung Han, a North Korea expert at the Institute for Foreign Affairs Security, a research group affiliated with the South Korean Foreign Ministry in Seoul. "At the very last minute, when everyone thinks it's time for them to accept, they escalate one last time to try to improve their bargaining position." (USA Today)

While South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, President-elect Roh Moo Hyun, and the majority of the Korean population may think American involvement has inhibited unification with South Korea, that is hardly the case. The advantage for re-unification is on North Korea's side with South Korea having everything to lose. Although the younger generation has forgotten U.S. aid during the Korean War, the older population still remembers and they also remember the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany was dragged into economic hell by the expense of integrating the formerly communist East into the prosperous and capitalistic West and they are still recovering from it. When two such polar opposites unite, one has to absorb the cost of the other and that will be the case with Korea.

South Korea's economy, with twice the population of the North's, is 37 times larger and it is pulling farther ahead every day. The North's people live in the world's most totalitarian state. Millions have died from starvation induced by failed collectivization of land, with those deemed politically unreliable given less access to food. Hundreds of thousands are so desperate that they have fled into China, even knowing that China returns many of these refugees to death or imprisonment in North Korea. Hundreds of thousands more have been sent to one of the world's last gulags, where they chip coal until they die. A still unknown number of Japanese and South Korean citizens have been kidnapped by North Korean agents and brought north to live. (Washington Post) South Korea's economy will be stressed by the influx of the poor not to mention the dilemma of incorporating a nation with more than 37 times less the GDP of its own citizens into their system. This will surely cause a recession.

South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, a Nobel Peace laureate and champion of human rights most of his life, hasn't discussed North Korea's violations of human rights violations much during his five-year run as president either. To do so would cast an ugly shadow over his benign sunshine policy of engagement with the North, the premise of which is that aid, trade and other inducements and contacts with a "democratic" society will gradually soften the hard edges of North Korean despotism. In the meantime, on the road to Utopia how will the two societies co-exist when these questions of human rights haven't been answered? Will the people live under South Korean law or North Korean authoritarianism? It is easier to ignore the reality and paint a happy picture of nationalism, but one nation under who? They haven't yet answered that question either.

The thing holding back North Korea from unification is the division of power. A merger means an overhaul of the government and neither of the Presidents Kim wants to lose that game. If they merged, most likely it would be South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that would succeed, as he would have the backing of the other "power" nations and more resources at his hands. To ready himself for this battle of control, North Korean President Kim Jong Il needs nuclear weapons as the greater threat. While unification would be better for the people of North Korea, it is not more advantageous for its despot and therein lies the problem.

The troubles of Korea were brought about internally and although American foreign policy have oftentimes added or decreased the amount of problems in Korea, it cannot mess with what wasn't there to begin with.

[wylin]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Jan 12 2003, 06:34 PM
I don't think it's weird. &nbsp;There are legitimate, growing concerns that our Administration is going to go out of control in their fight against evil, with no particular end in sight.
yah we need another good world war, maybe this is the Macross unification war, and i distinctly remember in the 1st macross Zero that shows the unification war its basically the US vs everyone. f117 hitting ppl, B2's carpet bombing cities, M1 abrams attacking cities, and it cuts to a scene of a nimitz class aircraft carrier launching US made f14's shooting down russian migs...i say lets start WW3 because our technology is lagging in weapons... and i wanna se tranfromable mecha by 2008 like macross!

[wylin]

im not we need a good population controlling and technology advancing global war, we seem to get them every so often... right now there are too many people...hence we should start sum controls the old fashioned way, warfare.

[iris]

I am well aware of what the sunshine policy is, Taz. What I and other social policy officials contend is that it is an ineffective solution to a serious problem due to economic disparities as well as social dichotomies that have not been addressed by either side.

I do not think that the Pyongyang initiation of nuclear weapons building is a direct response to Bush's statement. While that statement may have antagonized North Korea to a degree, it is being used as an excuse to increase offensive military power and as a means to avoid the NFT.

In October of 1994 according to an agreement between Korea and the United States, the U.S. stated it would organize an international consortium and sign a contract to build light water nuclear reactors for North Korea. Until the construction was completed, the United States and its partners would supply North Korea with fuel oil shipments.

In exchange, North Korea agreed to freeze, within three months of signing, operations of its graphite-modulated nuclear reactor that the West believed it was using to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Pyongyang also agreed to submit the country to full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards "when a significant portion of the LWR [light water reactor] project is completed, but before delivery of key nuclear components" for the facilities.

However, in early October of 2002, North Korea has admitted it had been secretly working to enrich uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons in violation of the 1994 deal that resolved the last such crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Shortly after this announcement, the U.S. halted shipments of fuel oil to North Korea.

In retaliation, North Korea announced that it would put the frozen reactor at Yongbyon back into production, and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty under which it had agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. A North Korean envoy to China, cited by Seoul's YTN television, said North Korea would be willing to reverse its decision if the United States and its allies resumed shipments of fuel oil, clearly demonstrating that is was less about a phrase, but more about economics and the grasp to establish themselves as a credible offensive power. A string of words does not bring countries onto the foothold of potential nuclear war. The problem lies deeper than that.

Because they reneged on a promise, South Korea pulled their support from North Korea also for the reason of "losing face." Han Sung Joo, who served as South Korea's foreign minister during the last crisis in 1994 eve stated that, "this makes it even more likely that one of [South Korea’s] aims this time is to establish themselves as a nuclear power. North Korea is really slapping South Korea in the face. South Korea worked very hard for [peaceful re-unification] but now they're putting the South Korean government in an extremely difficult position."

Ideally, the best situation would be to avoid war and merge peacefully, but not at the cost of denying realities. Those realities are are an economic vacuum for South Korea no matter how slow the re-unification process, the very real threat of nuclear war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the human rights violations resulting in a conflicting thoughts on social policy. And at the end of this merger, there will only be one government. To deny that there would be a power struggle is unreasonable at best. Power politics influence the decision of any good leader who has earned his place. While the re-unification may not occur in either President's lifetimes, power and influence can be increased or decreased during this shaky period.

[wylin]

one good war unifys them both ! see war is good!

[wylin]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 11:16 AM
wylin,

That's they don't put soldiers as head of our Department of War. Soldiers have warmongering tendencies, but we still have male egomaniac machcos such as yourself as advisors to George W which is just as dangerous.
no im just a real man and i am not insulted by weakling peace mongers... war is not just glory and honor and also it serves a purpose of population control of peaceful sheep like you, the wolves like me shall forever dominate the pacifist sheep and also sheep are ment to be culled when the herd grows to large and widely...hence the herd is culled and and weak are killed... Sorry i dont subscribe to leftwing pacifist crap, i subscribe to my own beliefs and ideals that man needs to have conflict to evolve and control his number, only human beings can prey upon other human beings and hence we can help use conflicts to evolve and educate our selves. so let us fight and evolve new ways of thought and methods to our madness.

or i could just be kidding dork! before u personally attack me, remember i dont take nething u say seriously because i feel ur pacifism is misguided. and im kidding partially but i do feel that war is a viable population control, how else have humans kept their populations down, disease? i rather die in battle or as a result of battle then die of influenza.

[wylin]

one thing TAz bout korea i think that the developement of nuclear devices is more a response to the changing political tides in the world, because it takes alot longer then you think to develope a nuclear program, and its reflects more of a state of fear of being left out and eventually overtaken of the worlds changes in both policys and national make ups. NK has lost its main benifactor and former totalitarian power house the USSR leaving it alone in many ways to fend for itself against what the north koreans feel is a very hostile Us and South korean presence next to its border... I'd liken that NK's development of nuclear arms is more of a response the prosperity in the south and political climate then just cuz they wanna insult the us... the economic situation of northkorea and their billigerence tends to point to a deeper rooted problems then just giving the US the finger.

[iris]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 14 2003, 03:28 AM
iris,

I guess we'll never know that.

It's clear to me the Bush Administration is the aggressor here, not Pyongyang. Why all this after the fact of naming NK an "Axis of Evil" member? North Korea is in no position to pick a fight.


We actually do know that for the reasons mentioned above.

1. Nuclear production began before the statements made by Bush.
2. North Korea tried to leave the NFT 10 years ago.
3. The U.N. had to step in again in 1994 when N. Korea was found to be making nuclear weapons.

For the reason that North Korea is not in the position to pick a fight with the rest of the world is exactly why they are resorting to nuclear weapons. Feeling pushed into a corner by changing ecnomic and political tendancies, they have to make a stand somewhere and then they have to have a means to back it up.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by wylin@Jan 13 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 11:16 AM
wylin,

That's they don't put soldiers as head of our Department of War. Soldiers have warmongering tendencies, but we still have male egomaniac machcos such as yourself as advisors to George W which is just as dangerous.
no im just a real man and i am not insulted by weakling peace mongers... war is not just glory and honor and also it serves a purpose of population control of peaceful sheep like you, the wolves like me shall forever dominate the pacifist sheep and also sheep are ment to be culled when the herd grows to large and widely...hence the herd is culled and and weak are killed... Sorry i dont subscribe to leftwing pacifist crap, i subscribe to my own beliefs and ideals that man needs to have conflict to evolve and control his number, only human beings can prey upon other human beings and hence we can help use conflicts to evolve and educate our selves. so let us fight and evolve new ways of thought and methods to our madness.

or i could just be kidding dork! before u personally attack me, remember i dont take nething u say seriously.
i could see logic in your views with regard to war and progress except that u want nuclear war. if that happened, no new tech would be created because the entire system of society would disappear. we'd be back in the stone or iron age in no time. only small pockets of higher learning would continue to function and we'd have to relearn and rediscover a vast amount of information. we'd have to have a new renaissance just to get back to our current levels of achievement.

if its population control u want, then the best way found so far is to bring ppl out of poverty and into industrialized society. but even so, don't u think that a massive growing population would better serve the interests of those proposing the colonization of space? if the population of earth was thinned drastically before the tech was available, then the driving force behind that idea would cease to exist.

if its tech u want, limited small wars would suffice b/c they are economically feasible in the long run and your engineers will have happy, productive jobs instead of having to worry about getting vaporized all the time.

also, do u not think that past wars have already educated many ppl about the horrors of war? that after millenia of small worldwide strife, the world spanning wars of recent times have educated those in power to try to use diplomacy whereever possible precisely b/c their cost is too great?

[wylin]

actually i want a largescale conventional conflict more akin to macross's global unification war then gundams first month of the 1 year war... i think a good large mostly convential conflict would advance society alot. hence i refered to macross's global unifcation war.

[iris]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 14 2003, 03:53 AM
I think you guys read too much American news source and commentaries. NK don't even need nuclear weapons to deter an US offensive.
Actually I'm in Hong Kong. I read the Asia Times, Newsweek Asia, and Asian Financial Times, but I'm aware that most of these journalists have probably been educated in the West.

[wylin]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 11:53 AM
I think you guys read too much American news source and commentaries. NK don't even need nuclear weapons to deter an US offensive.
nah actualy they cant deter it w/ 70's technology there best tanks are soviet T62 and T72 units that US slaughtered in desert storm, their best fighters are ancient mig 21 and mig 23 circa Vietnam era, all they really have is alot of men w/ guns and artilery, and those can be slaughtered via the calvary divisions w/ air support.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by wylin@Jan 13 2003, 01:54 PM
actually i want a largescale conventional conflict more akin to macross's global unification war then gundams first month of the 1 year war... i think a good large mostly convential conflict would advance society alot. hence i refered to macross's global unifcation war.
i'm not up to date of macross's unification war. but okay, lets continue from there:

if in the end, u end up w/ a unified society then your gain has been temporary and comes with a large cost in terms of money and ppl. once the world is united, conflicts cease and u could be faced with stagnation in terms of weapons development which u seem to equate with progress. and with a unified gov't, population controls could be issued by fiat and enforced by police like in china. no new tech is required for that...

i think weapons dev is a waste of time and money. look at japan b/f they entered their recession. they had(still have) some of the coolest stuff on the planet. but they spent much much less on defense than the US.

[wylin]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 13 2003, 12:02 PM
i'm not up to date of macross's unification war. &nbsp;but okay, lets continue from there:

if in the end, u end up w/ a unified society then your gain has been temporary and comes with a large cost in terms of money and ppl. &nbsp;once the world is united, conflicts cease and u could be faced with stagnation in terms of weapons development which u seem to equate with progress. &nbsp;and with a unified gov't, population controls could be issued by fiat and enforced by police like in china. &nbsp;no new tech is required for that...

i think weapons dev is a waste of time and money. &nbsp;look at japan b/f they entered their recession. &nbsp;they had(still have) some of the coolest stuff on the planet. &nbsp;but they spent much much less on defense than the US.
then how are u gonna fight the zentradi (aliens) or your own rebel space colonists then? with a fractured or unified front. unified miliatary poower works better for repelling large scale invasions. kidding...go watch macross b4 u argue w/ me bout it.

[wylin]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 12:06 PM
It's no surprise to me a warmongering person like you would missed the point.
no its just means im educated on tactics and technology know those things first before u open ur asshole to speak. Basically north korea has bout 1 million active troops and 4 million reserves. The united states would loose initiially loosing seoul and south korean within days of the north korean advance...but it would retaliate via the regional bases in japan and floating armada of aircraft carriers... ground conflict would have to come later when the US army can mobilize its heavy combat forces to be shipped to japan...they would initally mobilize armored cavalry divsions that use a combonation of IFV's and Main Battle tanks, and helicopters...these would along w/ marine landing forces begin the assualt... pay attenrion to the fact soviet tanks cannot damage m1 abrams at the m1's firing range of 5 miles for its Depleted uranium shells, and that aircraft would have taken out most of the NK artillery and MLRS rocket launcer vehicles. Air to Air combat wise the US would just rape the NK' airforce w/ its F14 and f15 fighters leaving an opening for heavy bombing of both NK factories and troops by both precision guided munitions and bomblet based weapons...along w/ heavy bomber carpet bombing the troops into submission. thus they get RAPED.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by wylin@Jan 13 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jan 13 2003, 12:02 PM
i'm not up to date of macross's unification war. but okay, lets continue from there:

if in the end, u end up w/ a unified society then your gain has been temporary and comes with a large cost in terms of money and ppl. once the world is united, conflicts cease and u could be faced with stagnation in terms of weapons development which u seem to equate with progress. and with a unified gov't, population controls could be issued by fiat and enforced by police like in china. no new tech is required for that...

i think weapons dev is a waste of time and money. look at japan b/f they entered their recession. they had(still have) some of the coolest stuff on the planet. but they spent much much less on defense than the US.
then how are u gonna fight the zentradi (aliens) or your own rebel space colonists then? with a fractured or unified front. unified miliatary poower works better for repelling large scale invasions. kidding...go watch macross b4 u argue w/ me bout it.
okay, fine fine. as long as there remains some source of conflict whether it be aliens or rebels i can see it from your POV.

[iris]

Taz, perhaps I'm being a bit Westernized in my views. Maybe you could present some reasons on why you think Bush's statement pushed N. Korea into a nuclear weapons production scheme or why you think a string of words can push two great nations into war? I'm not clear why you think North Korea isn't a threat to the Nuclear Peace treaty? Back it up with reasons, logic, and verifiable facts?

4a.m. for little Miss Addict here. Going to bed now.

[SunWuKong]

well i just think that regardless of why NK has developed/is developing nuclear weapons, i think if anybody would fire a nuclear warhead first, it would be NK. in my opinion, that makes them the most dangerous. yeah i think the Bush administration needs to take a more reconciliatory stance. but at the same time, NK is using nuclear blackmail to try to get what it wants.

[iris]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 14 2003, 04:06 AM
It's no surprise to me a warmongering person like you would missed the point.
I think you missed the point. Will was refuting your argument that North Korea could withstand a U.S. offensive without the aid of nuclear weapons by offering facts of the North Korean current weapons arsenal.

[wylin]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 13 2003, 12:15 PM
well i just think that regardless of why NK has developed/is developing nuclear weapons, i think if anybody would fire a nuclear warhead first, it would be NK. in my opinion, that makes them the most dangerous. yeah i think the Bush administration needs to take a more reconciliatory stance. but at the same time, NK is using nuclear blackmail to try to get what it wants.
if NK uses a nuke their assed though, we know it they know it... a strike from US tacticle nuclear forices will deal them a death blow. even worse would be to attack the US carrier fleet or japanese bases w/ nukes then that might even bring about strategic nuclear weapons use which would mean the absolute disolution and destruction of north korea. :lol:

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 02:53 PM
I think you guys read too much American news source and commentaries. NK don't even need nuclear weapons to deter an US offensive.
try reading Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/).

[Chris]

USA hands down.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by tazadar@Jan 13 2003, 02:38 PM
iris,

The current moves by Pyangyong are direct response to the Bush war on the "Axis of Evil."

"The thing holding back North Korea from unification is the division of power. A merger means an overhaul of the government and neither of the Presidents Kim wants to lose that game. If they merged, most likely it would be South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that would succeed, as he would have the backing of the other "power" nations and more resources at his hands. To ready himself for this battle of control, North Korean President Kim Jong Il needs nuclear weapons as the greater threat. While unification would be better for the people of North Korea, it is not more advantageous for its despot and therein lies the problem."

This is an outrageous lie and propaganda. Neither Kim Dae Jung nor Kim Jong Il expects to see a reunified Korea within their life time.

"Sunshine Policy"' emphasizes the peaceful management of the Korean divide through engagement, - previous governments sought mainly to contain North Korea - envisions greater interaction and the funneling of economic assistance and diplomatic favors from the South to the North, hoping to eventually soften North Korea's stances in the course of promoting peace and cooperation on the Korean peninsula.

Some of the commitments to open up ties between the two Koreas.

* Cooperation of building two light-water reactors in North Korea. SK commitment of $3 billion.

* Increase South Korean business operations in North Korea. Seperate economics from politics.

* Commitment of food and agricultural aid to North Korea.

This is the way to avoid war and the slow process towards reunification - not through naming North Korea an enemy.
no, we tried to appease to dictators before, never worked. We gave Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia, he proceeded to take Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France, Greece, Hungary, Yugoslavia... I think South Korea's sunshine policy is naive and destined to blow up in their face if it continues. It would take collaspe in the Kim Jong Il's government similar to East Germany in 1989 for unification to be possible. How did it happen in East Germany? A whole lot of US pressure against East Germany and its boss the Soviet Union (Tear down that wall! The Soviet Union is an evil empire, all from my favorite pres. Ronald Reagan).

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 03:47 PM
my favorite pres. Ronald Reagan
heheheh why am i not surprised? :dance:

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by rakovlam@Jan 13 2003, 02:47 PM

no, we tried to appease to dictators before, never worked. We gave Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia, he proceeded to take Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France, Greece, Hungary, Yugoslavia... I think South Korea's sunshine policy is naive and destined to blow up in their face if it continues. It would take collaspe in the Kim Jong Il's government similar to East Germany in 1989 for unification to be possible. How did it happen in East Germany? A whole lot of US pressure against East Germany and its boss the Soviet Union (Tear down that wall! The Soviet Union is an evil empire, all from my favorite pres. Ronald Reagan).
even if it worked, no one wants the collapse of NK right now. nobody wants to pay for their integration with the modern world. not the US, not SK, not japan nor china. squeezing them till they collapse is gonna have to wait.

[rakovlam]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Jan 13 2003, 04:49 PM
heheheh why am i not surprised? :dance:
Nah, most people would of thought it was George W. Bush. Yeah, he's doing a good job but the steel tariffs, the Ted Kennedy 'No Child Left Behind' legislation, the opposition to stem cell research placed him in the middle of the top 10.

[Fireblade]

I think this nation's administration (US), is out on a witch-hunt for anything and everything that opposes it. We're seen as the "big bully" of nations. And given this nation's history, I don't doubt it. I'm not all too keen on North Korea having nuclear arms, but then again should we have them as well?? We tend to stick our noses in areas where it's not needed. And Bush seems quite ready to do anything it takes to remain popular with the nation. Sadly enough, most of the nation agrees with him. (Sorry for all the folks who like Bush, I just don't like him)

And we tend to protect our own interests, rather than help out others. We always have some sort of agenda. Our military is it's own government, and I'm not too keen about those soilders who killed the two young girls in South Korea.

However, I wouldn't want to live in any other country than where my own two feet are now. I just don't quite agree with our administration right now. =/