Quoting:
So, North Korea kicks out the UN's IAEA inspectors, the United States attempts to "isolate" the country and Colin Powell says there's "No crisis."  
For number two on the axis of evil chart, North Korea is getting off pretty light.
End Quote

  I'd venture to guess that if N. Korea posessed developed oil fields, the U.S. position would be noticeably different.

Quoting:
Just Because nothing has happened yet, dosen't mean that nothing will happen.
End Quote

Your statement reminded me of some circa-Gulf War I Saturday Night Live skits where the reporters were asking the general to divulge classified information like when the troops were going to attack and the positions and numbers of said troops.  Sometimes the press can be so stupid.  :)

Sorry the war isn't being kind to your personal schedules, by the way ::)

Quoting:


Your statement reminded me of some circa-Gulf War I Saturday Night Live skits where the reporters were asking the general to divulge classified information like when the troops were going to attack and the positions and numbers of said troops.  Sometimes the press can be so stupid.  :)


End Quote

   This reminds me of watching SecDef Rumsfeld's press conferences...that guy is the artful dodger, brilliantly executed.

Quoting:
What happened to "zero tolerance for rogue nations creating weapons of mass destruction?"  

I thought at heart this was a war against terrorists and nations that arm and harbor them.  There's no evidence that Al Qaeda is directly linked with Iraq or North Korea.  
North Korea exports weapons, Iraq does not.
North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, Iraq does not.
There's evidence that North Korea is preparing to build more nuclear warheads, there's no evidence Iraq is doing so.
End Quote

I think I said something along similar lines in an earlier thread. It seems extraordinarily hypocritical that Iraq is being threatened with war because of a perceived threat they may pose, and yet an openly aggressive nation that already has the capacity to launch a nuclear missile is being rapped over the knuckles. It seems to me the more Iraq promises to appease the UN (not that Saddam's promises mean much, mind you), the more the US accuses them of lying. Yet North Korea sends troops into the demilitarised zone and reopens nuclear facilities they've been told not to reopen and America does nothing. Perhaps they think that invading Iraq will scare North Korea into backing down, but why would it? Iraq has a few tens of thousands and no nuclear weapons. They barely have the ability to shoot a rocket into Israel without them failing or getting blown up before they get there. North Korea has a standing army almost as large as that of the United States, and they have nuclear weapons... Wait, I'm beginning to understand now.

Quoting:


I think I said something along similar lines in an earlier thread. It seems extraordinarily hypocritical that Iraq is being threatened with war because of a perceived threat they may pose, and yet an openly aggressive nation that already has the capacity to launch a nuclear missile is being rapped over the knuckles.End Quote

If what's happening even amounts to a rap.  For us in the US, the hypocrisy is sharper because of President Bush's "zero tolerance" message after 9/11.  Iraq is a potential threat, North Korea is an immediate one.  The US seems to be pursuing a limited containment policy towards North Korea -- cut off aid, halt weapons transfer.  

Quoting: It seems to me the more Iraq promises to appease the UN (not that Saddam's promises mean much, mind you), the more the US accuses them of lying.End Quote

In my opinion, Saddam's greatest threat is as a cornered despot.  If anyone is a candidate for going out in a martyred, scorned earth fashion it's him.  

Quoting: Yet North Korea sends troops into the demilitarised zone and reopens nuclear facilities they've been told not to reopen and America does nothing. Perhaps they think that invading Iraq will scare North Korea into backing down, but why would it? Iraq has a few tens of thousands and no nuclear weapons. They barely have the ability to shoot a rocket into Israel without them failing or getting blown up before they get there. North Korea has a standing army almost as large as that of the United States, and they have nuclear weapons... Wait, I'm beginning to understand now.
End Quote

... and those don't love us in Seoul like they once useta.  North Korea has a million men under arms.  

Quoting:
Here's an article that I found today that I hopes illustrates my comment earlier about Korea acting the "tease".  

S. Korea Plan Seeks to Defuse Nuke Crisis
By HANS GREIMEL
Associated Press Writer

 
One South Korean compromise being considered calls for the United States to resume oil shipments to North Korea, in return for the North abandoning its uranium nuclear development, media reported Saturday.

But State Department spokesman Richard Boucher indicated Friday that Washington would not compromise: "We have no intention of sitting down and bargaining again."The North and South have remained divided since the end of the 1950-53 Korea War, which ended not in a peace treaty but an armistice

End Quote

The second to the last paragraph, to my understanding, shows where the sands have shifted on this issue.  South Korea seems to be detaching as a US ally.  Back when they wouldn't have proposed that the United States make concessions.  

If the US does sign a non-aggression agreement, if they resume oil shipments, does that signify they're scrapping the zero-tolerance policy?

Quoting:

Another possible rationale: Using its nuclear program as part of a high-stakes bid for much-needed foreign aid.


End Quote

Quoting:
Yay, Axis Of Evil :D ! Is it too late to place our bets at the casino? :) :D ;D
End Quote

But don't check out the latest online New Yorker.  They have a piece on the fellow who came up with the "axis of evil" line (which began as the rather flaccid "axis of hatred").  According to the article, Korea was a late addition, almost an afterthought.

Quoting:


But don't check out the latest online New Yorker.  They have a piece on the fellow who came up with the "axis of evil" line (which began as the rather flaccid "axis of hatred").  According to the article, Korea was a late addition, almost an afterthought.
End Quote

Quoting:
Patience, my young Padawans ;)  I'm sure if Dubya really wanted to North Korea would be deleted off the map.  For now they're using the diplomatic route.  What more do you want?
End Quote

I just had to jump-in for this -

LOL!!!

Quoting:
Patience, my young Padawans ;)  I'm sure if Dubya really wanted to North Korea would be deleted off the map.  For now they're using the diplomatic route.  What more do you want?
End Quote

Earl, I'm just as alarmed by the yellow peril as you are, and I agree with you -- we should bomb that corner of the globe back to a radioactive stone age.

Unfortunately, one our Few and Proud aren't going to throw so much as a stick over the border without an act of congress.  The President can't go to war on his own initiative, he needs the support of Congress

Quoting:

Unfortunately, one our Few and Proud aren't going to throw so much as a stick over the border without an act of congress.  The President can't go to war on his own initiative, he needs the support of Congress
End Quote

Here's a thought:

W. -- "Okay, so this is the nuclear launching facility, cool!"

General -- "Careful, sir, you don't wanna--"

W. -- "Ooooops!"

*W. falls and lands on red button to North Korea*

W. -- "Awww, nuts...oh well"

Quoting:


Here's a thought:

W. -- "Okay, so this is the nuclear launching facility, cool!"

General -- "Careful, sir, you don't wanna--"

W. -- "Ooooops!"

*W. falls and lands on red button to North Korea*

W. -- "Awww, nuts...oh well"
End Quote

Hmmm... he could trip while gagging on a pretzel... !!!
You're a genius, Earl!  An evil-genius, but genius nonetheless   ;D

Quoting:
He has to have specific authorization.  He has that for Iraq, hasn't for North Korea.
End Quote

Fair enough.  I think diplomacy in this case will work out.  North Korea, in my opinion, can't do much without getting wiped off the face of the earth.  It wouldn't hurt to take their muppet of a "president" out of power either.

Quoting:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=1008290

Above is a link to a good, short article on presidential war power
End Quote

Quoting:
It'll go something like this:

I'm pretty confident the US can exert some pressure on China to throw down on North Korea.
End Quote

What do you base your confidence on?

Quoting:
Do what you will ;)  I'm not that worried about it.
End Quote

You're outrageously reasonable sometimes, Earl...

Quoting:


Iraq is interesting too, Rumfield hinting that Saddam goes exile than won't be persecuted for war crimes.
End Quote

How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?

Quoting:


How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?
End Quote

Let's put them in sumo costumes and have them fight to the death.  That would be a huge hit on FOX Celebrity Boxing or MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch--LIVE ACTION!  ;D

Quoting:


Let's put them in sumo costumes and have them fight to the death.  That would be a huge hit on FOX Celebrity Boxing or MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch--LIVE ACTION!  ;D
End Quote

::)

Quoting:


How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimes?
End Quote

Quoting:
I'm glad someone in the region (the ones who SHOULD care about this) finally grew some balls.

End Quote

ooooh, and the plot thickens... :D

It is good news, now hopefully they stick to their word and don't back down under pressure.  

Quoting:
Iraq is interesting too, Rumfield hinting that Saddam goes exile than won't be persecuted for war crimes.
End Quote

Quoting:How could we not prosecute Hussien or Kim Il Jong for war crimesEnd Quote

Idi Amin was never punished for his crimes against humanity. He's living in luxury as a guest of the Saudi royal family.

Quoting:
As someone who has opposed an invasion of Iraq until recently, the hardest thing I've had to live with was the feeling that anti-war protesters in America and abroad were doing more to avoid war than Saddam.  I mean criminy, why expend efforts trying to avoid death and bloodshed for Iraqis when their own leader seems hell-bent for martyrdom?
End Quote

   Hmm, I question your logic on this one, Steve.  I doubt the ordinary Iraqi citizen relishes death and destruction for themselves any more than the anti-war movement, but if you're implying the dissent within Iraq itself could and should be "doing more" to improve their own situation, then we're in complete agreement. 

Quoting:
The best resolution, by far, would be for Saddam to opt for exile.
End Quote

  Yes.  A best case scenario.

Quoting:
I'm glad someone in the region (the ones who SHOULD care about this) finally grew some balls.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/13/nkorea.nuclear/index.html
End Quote

   Japan has no military other than their Defense Force, which is relatively small. The full range of their defense is not designed for more than 1600 km from the main island. While they've been rethinking Article 9 of their constitution lately to assist in situations that might arise in SW Asia or Central Asia, there has been as yet no amendment to Art. 9. They have contributed to UN peacekeeping before, but never with armed troops, only administrative duties. Art. 9 is a renunciation of war; the constitution was written in 1946 by Douglass MacArthur.

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

  Japan was allowed to maintain the small defense force. I can't imagine with what they would threaten NK unless its the US 7th Fleet.

Quoting:why expend efforts trying to avoid death and bloodshed for Iraqis when their own leader seems hell-bent for martyrdom?  

   Hmm, I question your logic on this one, Steve.  I doubt the ordinary Iraqi citizen relishes death and destruction for themselves any more than the anti-war movement, but if you're implying the dissent within Iraq itself could and should be "doing more" to improve their own situation, then we're in complete agreement. 
End Quote

No, I was referring to Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein.  It was always within his power to avoid this confrontation... he could have disarmed, as he was instructed to my the United Nations.  He could have proactively co-operated with the UN weapon inspectors, which he has not done.  He could have accounted for missing chemical and biological agents.  The burden of proof has been on Iraq.  Weapons inspections are a sham, and Hussein realizes that.

Quoting:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm

According to this, Japan's military spending and manpower is greater than the UK's...End Quote

"According to some estimates, the unit costs of Japanese vehicles are three to ten times as expensive as those of the US vehicles. Similar price gaps exist between Japan and England, France, Germany and other European nations. It is believed that Russian equipment cost 30% less than equivalent US equipment. Given such huge discrepancies, Japan’s defense spending in reality is at about the same level with those of South Korea and Taiwan." - globalsecurity.org
  ...but, not greater than N. Korea's.

Quoting:...and their navy is one of the most formidable units in the world.End Quote

  I'll take your word for it. ;)  At least the Japanese navy boasts Aegis-class destroyers.

Quoting:...Also, while they are not permitted to engage in open war, this does not preclude them from self-defense.  The fact that the DPRK floated a missile over Honshu a couple years ago and the current hostile state of the DPRK gives them the right to defend their interests...End Quote

  I was never against Japan defending herself.  In fact, I'm all for it.

Quoting:Not to mention that North Korea is within 1600 km of Japan.  And the USA, if necessary, are bound by the agreement to come to Japan's aid in the event of an incursion or nuclear emergency.End Quote

  Yeah, like I said...  

Quoting:I don't think it will come to that.  Japan's threat is a good deterrent for now.
End Quote

  My point was Japan's military is more geared towards self defense close to it's borders than projection of military power over a given region.  Japan also has no missile defense system in place.
   Ultimately, the U.S. will come to the rescue.  Perhaps Japan and S. Korea should publicly enter a new alliance, instruct the US to remove her troops and cease negotiating on their behalf, and then look Kim straight in his eyes as proud people...*shrugs shoulders*

Quoting:


No, I was referring to Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein.  It was always within his power to avoid this confrontation... he could have disarmed, as he was instructed to my the United Nations.  He could have proactively co-operated with the UN weapon inspectors, which he has not done.  He could have accounted for missing chemical and biological agents.  The burden of proof has been on Iraq.  Weapons inspections are a sham, and Hussein realizes that.
End Quote

  How about looking at it in this way...the burden of proof has always been on Saddam Hussein, not Iraq.
  Steve, I'm trying with all my might to help you avoid smashing this proverbial ant with a steamroller.... ;)

Quoting:


  How about looking at it in this way...the burden of proof has always been on Saddam Hussein, not Iraq.
  Steve, I'm trying with all my might to help you avoid smashing this proverbial ant with a steamroller.... ;)
End Quote

Hussein is the representative leader of Iraq, not Kuala Lampur.  Unless and until that changes, the burden of proof rests with Iraq.  
What "ant" are we referring to?  The biological and chemical weapons that are unaccounted for?  

Quoting:


Hussein is the representative leader of Iraq, not Kuala Lampur. End Quote

I don't understand what you mean here.

Quoting:


I don't understand what you mean here.
End Quote

Davester is drawing the distinction between Saddam and Iraq and is holding Saddam responsible for meeting United Nations' inspection demands.  At least, I think that's the distinction he's making.  In this case I don't how relevant it is to draw the distinction.    Didn't mean to throw you off...

Quoting:
Yes but I don't understand what Kuala Lumpur has to do with anything.
End Quote

Just like the sound of it.  I could have said Saddam isn't the mayor of Cleveland just as easily.