Bombers Sent to Guam - This after surveillance bird harassed

[Old Friend]

After four North Koreans fighters intercepted a United States spy plane on Sunday, the U.S. has decided to take it up a notch and send 24 Bombers to Guam. This is meant to demonstrate our willingness to hold true to our efforts to combat this Axis of Evil. We have abandoned the policy of appeasing dictators, converting to a more realistic method to deal with nuclear blackmailers.

source: VOA News (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=25BF870C-ED71-4565-9FBB2E23EAB5B111)

The move made by North Koreans, on Sunday, mimicks a similar incident that occurred in early 2001 with the Chinese. In that incident an EP-3 Navy surveillance bird was clipped in international airspace, and was forced to land in China. Diplomatic relations with China was severely damaged, because of their conduct. They refused to hand the vehicle, which was initially in international airspace back over to the U.S. without first determining the specs needed to reverse engineer the "bird". In addition, they demanded an apology from President Bush for the life lost by the pilot who deliberately caused the collision. Stories have indicated that Sunday's incident also occurred in international airspace, meaning the North Koreans are again flaunting their blatant disregard for international law.

source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1269725.stm)

This isn't the first such incident with an asset of this type. In fact, the Soviets accidentally shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 mistaking it for a surveillance bird similar to the one that was harassed on Sunday. In that incident a Korean airliner strayed off-course in the direction of a Soviet missile sight. The Russians scrambled a jet to identify it. A signal was given to the pilots of the airliner to land. When that failed to get the attention of the commercial airline, the pilot shot it down. Here is a transcript of the conversation the Soviet pilot had with his control tower:

"The target is military. As soon as it has violated state borders, destroy it. Arm your weapons . . . . The target has violated the state border. Destroy the target."

Source: The Washington Post (http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kal-007.htm)

Of course, the Soviets were confusing flight 007 as the type of surveillance gathering plane hassled by both the Chinese, and the North Koreans. Luckily, for our teams of engineers on those flights, these newer incidents have not ended in tragedy. The purpose they serve is vital to our national security. Hopefully, all the data they risked their lives to get has been of some use in our fight against global state sponsored terrorism, especially in detailing the threat level of the North Koreans at this time.

(Edited by Old Friend at 12:53 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[CheViveToday]

If a North Korean spy plane came near the U.S., it would be blown out of the sky. So why is the U.S. so upset that their plane was merely flown near by some other North Korean planes?

[Old Friend]

Our plane was 150 miles away from North Korean airspace.

[CruelVerdad]

Some will say the plane was miles away from North Korean airspace, others will say it was on North Korean airspace, but that´s not the point, why there was a spy plane in that airspace? Bush should speak, give good reasons, maybe then it will become a problem for the north koreans, for breaking international airspace laws.

[Old Friend]

What the plane was doing remains classified. If you can not figure out the need to collect intelligence on a country that is threatening us with nuclear weapons, then there is no help for you. Obviously, this had everything to do with current rhetoric coming from that regime. Surely, we were trying to assess the current situation.

Sorry, but the plane was definitely outside N. Korean airspace. There is no reason for it to enter foreign airspace and risk being shot down, and its secrets compromised. I am sure that it was designed to obtain everything it needs from international airspace.

North Korea is again making aggressive moves, and is once again in violation of international treaties. Hopefully, surgical strikes on their nuclear program are determined to be the best method of nuetralizing this current threat. Otherwise, other countries will also try nuclear blackmail as a means to extort the American people.

Whatever the case, the administration is right in not directly talking to them. At the very least, they should be cut off from any international aid, and sanctions should also be in place. One thing is for certain, we should quit sending their army food, because we may find ourselves at war with them in the next couple of months.

[Xvall]

Hey Norm; I'm going to go with a pair of binoculars and sit in a tree, looking in on you and your family. Don't ask what I'm doing; It's classified!

[Moskitto]

If you can not figure out the need to collect intelligence on a country that is threatening us with nuclear weapons, then there is no help for you.

but i'm sure a north korean spy plane could aregue the same thing...

[Saint-Just]

The U.S. is threatening the DPRK with nuclear weapons. The DPRK is under far more threat than the U.S. unless the U.S. initiates a war, then the circumstances will change.

The U.S. has no business in their occupation of South Korea. It is hardly surprising that they are using spy planes, however equally the DPRK has the right to deal with any spying taking place on its country.

The U.S. has ignored the DPRK-U.S. agreed framework. The DPRK has declared its withdrawal from the NPT. Hopefully it will develope nuclear weapons sufficient to counter the U.S. threat.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 11:02 pm on Mar. 5, 2003)

[Old Friend]

Hey Norm; I'm going to go with a pair of binoculars and sit in a tree, looking in on you and your family. Don't ask what I'm doing; It's classified!

If you had reason to believe that I was manufacturing explosives in my house, then you would be well warranted in checking out my activities. Say I was making crystal methamphetamine in my apartment, and you noticed something smelled fishy, again you would be justified in snooping to assess the situation. This kind of thing happens all the time. People who notice strange activities on the part of the neighbors are responsible for many arrest that are made. People who are manufacturing explosives, or methamphetamine, which if done wrong acts as an explosive, pose a threat to the surrounding community. As soon as they engage in illegal activities their right to privacy no longer exists. So, you must excuse me if I fail to recognize the strength of your argument, Drake. Besides the rules of the game for spying are very different from civil law, there is no real comparison to be made there.

[Old Friend]

Moskitto,

Aren't you British? Do you not have loyalty to Western ideas? Whose side are you on anyway, North Korea's?

The nuclear devices that these countries are aqcuiring are pointed at your country, just as they are pointed at mine. In fact, considering Britain's position in Europe, it would be easier to smuggle a suitbase nuclear bomb into your country than mine.

You should be just as concerned with N. Korea, as I am, for I am sure your government will also send troops into the region. You are the right age for military service. If a disaster can be averted through the use of intelligence, Is it not our responsibility to use those methods? If a large scale war with North Korea could be avoided through the use of sensitive information gathered by our plane, and if that snooping took place outside of North Korea's airspace, without any hostile acts being committed on our part, are we not working towards a noble aim?

As I have said before the nature of British and United States intelligence is very different than that of these communist countries. I suppose a comparison could be made based upon good vs. evil. If you fail to recognize the distinction between the two, that's your problem, not mine. I am sure those working in our intelligence community would agree with me, and are not going to give much consideration to the thoughts of people like Mao here.

[Pete]

"North Korea is again making aggressive moves, and is once again in violation of international treaties."

Of course, how could we forget. Norman check your sources. America renagged on the deal that kept nukes out of North Korea's hands. It is America's fault that they went afternukes. Even if they have broken international law, they musy be learning it from a large, powerful westernnation!

All you Americans who tell other nations to follow international law while you still hold POW's in Guatemalo Bay against Geneva, or have failed to pay back nations that the World Court and other bodies ored them to. Don't tell others what to do until you clean up your own act.

[death b4 dishonour]

I don't know what the US is making a big stink about. It was a SPY plane. SPYING on North Korea. They had a right to do wha they did, even if it was in international airspace.

[CheViveToday]

I agree, having your jets fly close to an American plane is a rather agressive move. But hey wait, spying on another country could certainly be considered an agressive move, whether the reason it is spying is justified or not. Also it is obviously known that the U.S. makes nuclear weapons. I guess that means it's alright for North Korea to send some of their spy planes over here, according to your logic, Old Friend..hmmm?

[Bodacious]

dont think we didnt take it as a complement when 4 people wanted to sniff our ass .

[CheViveToday]

Must have been a terrible smell since the U.S. is full of shit. ;)

[Bodacious]

hey I could care less , let China handle its on baby over there. Um they made it in a way , let China feed it and put the North Korean's to work .. why should America care anyway right?

I dont.

Thats my vote , communism is so great you take care of your own for ONCE. Hey weapon's of destruction is there only income right ? new's flash China ..we had stealth , nuclear and smart bomb's technolgy 50 year's ago. So u stole a few thing's here's a laugh on you , you actually think the most powerfull nation on earth is going to show or put it's most powerfull weapons out for all to see?

news flash braniac if you ever do see them you will never be able to tell your boyfriend.

[CheViveToday]

Hmm...I don't understand the boyfriend part, but you're right about the technology. Just think about the planes the U.S. has now, but that we just don't know about. Some crazy shit that can probably account for many of the UFO sightings in the world. It's no coincidence that so many UFO sightings are reported in Nevada, where the U.S. tests its new technology.

[Old Friend]

Hey Pete! You really are crazy.

"The most recent crisis began in October, when the United States confronted North Korea with evidence that it was developing a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 accord under which the North vowed to freeze its program in exchange for economic assistance and two nuclear energy reactors. North Korea acknowledged it had violated the pact and promptly broke from it."

Source: The Boston Globe (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030227-dprknukes01.htm)

Let's get this straight. The people being held in Camp X-ray are not considered POW's. They are defined as enemy combatants. As such, they are tried using military commisions, or military tribunals. This order was issued by President Bush in November 2001, after it was recognized that we had a severe terrorist problem in the world. There are numerous reasons for using these tribunals, mostly because we do not wish to divulve classified information in a public court. Classified information includes sources and methodology. Revealing such data could jeopardize our ability to fight the enemy, and could get our sources killed.

Source: Fact sheet: The DOD Order on Military Commisions 3/21/02 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321fact.pdf)

Despite the fact that these prisoners are not protected under the Geneva Convention, the treatment they have received is consistent with international law. The reason we have been so careful in providing quality detainment for these dirtbags is to curtail the sort of ignorant criticism that you bring to the discussion, Pete. We knew well in advance that morons would try to claim that the terrorists had rights too. Therefore, we decided to stop this predictable criticism dead in its tracks. If you can provide any evidence that contradicts the government's position, I would be more than happy to hear it. Tell me how allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda combatants to receive the following items can be see as a violation to the international treaty, remembering that the Geneva convention does not apply to these detainees.

"The detainees, both Taliban and al Queda alike, are receiving, as a matter of United States policy, the following items:

-Three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws
-Water
-Medical care
-Clothing and shoes
-Showers
-Soap and toilet articles
-Foam sleeping pads and blankets
-Towels and washcloths
-The opportunity to worship
-Correspondence materials, and the means to send mail
-The ability to receive packages of food and clothing, subject to security screening."

Source: A well sourced essay entitled Detainees or Prisoners of War?: The Applicability of the Geneva Convention to the War on Terrorism; Diane K. Hook (http://www.mobar.org/journal/2002/novdec/hook.htm)

It must be very nice to be able to run off at the mouth without any responsibility, whatsoever. I have noticed that you continually make claims that are utterly false, Pete. You are often mistaken, and never bother to provide sources for any of the bullshit statements you make. This is a characteristic that makes you look foolish, as you should at least be correct in your assumptions when you make off the cuff remarks, without backing them up. What are your sources, Pete, Commondreams, Z-Magazine, The Che-lives newsletter?

(Edited by Old Friend at 8:40 am on Mar. 6, 2003)

[Pete]

Toronto Star, CBC News, BBC News, CTV News. Hey it is hell finding the manuscript for new casts is it not? Or newspaper articles from months ago.

But it is easy to find an order from the President of the US (who claims to be the leader of the free world none-the-less.) that is used to cover his ass when he is brought up to the fact that they are not following the Geneva Protocole. Have you seen the pictures of binded and masked men? The President of the United States declared the violence of Sept 11 2001 an act of war to help out his insurance agency buddies. They didn't have to pay anything to any claimants. He makes statements in the self interest of whoever is pulling his strings.

The Boston Globe. A US new source. Head to a more neutral country. I read reports from a few Canadian News Agencies, including the CBC which is by far the closest to neutral broadcaster on this continent, which stated the US did not supply the nuclear reactors. I'd supply oyu with a source if you tell me how to check the archives of such a site. I have tried and come out empty handed, because they only go back a month.

Can't comment on the Essay. It would take to long to check out 74 or so sources.

[Pete]

Ok Norm. Here is my source. I had to do with what I could find, but is the FAS good enough for you?

"The main elements of the Bush Administration policy are (1) terminating the Agreed Framework... In November 2002, the Administration's intiative led the Korean Penisula Development Organization (KEDO, the international body adminstering the 1994 Agreed Framework) to suspend heavy oil shipments to North Korea - a key component of the Agreed Framework...President bush issued a statement on June 6, 2001, outling policy objectives related to implementation of the US-North 1994 Agread Framework ... he stated that if North Korea took positive actions in response to US policy, the United States "will exapand our efforts to help the North Korean people, ease sanctions and take other policitcal steps." President Bush's designation of Norht Korea as apart of an "axis of evil" in his January 29, 2002 State of the Union address clarified the Adminstration's policy that emerged after the June 6 statement...President Bush waived certification in March 2002 that North Korea was in compliance with the Agreed Framework...[Under the Agreed Framework AMerica would] supply contract for th provision of nuclear reactors to North Koreas... Benefits to North Korea, Light Water Nuclear Reactors...Oil at no cost...diplomatic represetnation...lifting of US Economic Embargo...North Korean Obligations...Inspections and Broader Nuclear Obligatoins...Disposition of Fuel Rods from the Five Megawatt Reactor...Dismantlement of Nuclear Installations...A state Department interpretation holds that dismantlement will begin when the first light wayer reactor is installed and completed whent he second reactor is fully installed..."

FAS- Issue Brief for Congress- North Korea's Weapons Programs - Jan 22 2003 (http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/IB91141.pdf)

"Construction of the light water reactors was to be performed under a turnkey contract with KEPCO, which was awarded in December 1999. Initial site preparation work had begun, and the concrete foundation at the site was laid in August 2002. Training of North Korean technicians who were to operate the reactors had begun in June 2002. The project had faced many delays, and the completion date for the first reactor has been pushed back to at least 2008, from an original completion date of 2003."

The Energy Information Association (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nkorea.html)

"1) In accordance with the October 20, 1994 letter of assurance from the U.S. President, the U.S. will undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR project with a total generating capacity of approximately 2,000 MW(e) by a target date of 2003...
-- Second, it terminates the existing DPRK nuclear program. Activity at the DPRK's nuclear facilities (5 megawatt (MW) reactor, reprocessing facility, and 50 and 200 MW reactors now under construction) will remain frozen, under the supervision of IAEA inspectors. When light water reactors are nearing completion, North Korea will dismantle those facilities...."

Agreement Framework with North Korea (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm)

Niether side can claim innocence for what happened. Yet my sources show that America is responsible for a majority of the burden. The Agreed Framework stated 2003 as the target date, and it was delayed to 2008 (at the earliest) with out the approval of N. Korea. I understand it can not be entirely America's fault, but it is definitly not N. Korea's fault. Part lies in the time consuming inspections, but a large part lies in a delayed start to the process. The FAS, EIA, and the actual Treaty are cited. Enjoy.

[Xvall]

If you had reason to believe that I was manufacturing explosives in my house, then you would be well warranted in checking out my activities.

That would be very hyprocritical; seeing as I (your country) posess thousands of explosives.

Say I was making crystal methamphetamine in my apartment, and you noticed something smelled fishy, again you would be justified in snooping to assess the situation.

Crystal meth is your own business. Like I said, The United States has countless Nuclear Weapons, so I think it is quite hypocritical when they say that other countries should not have them as well.

This kind of thing happens all the time. People who notice strange activities on the part of the neighbors are responsible for many arrest that are made. People who are manufacturing explosives, or methamphetamine, which if done wrong acts as an explosive, pose a threat to the surrounding community.

But these people are all innocent. It's not like the people who rat out on persons who create meth labs have meth labs of their own. You understand what I am saying.

As soon as they engage in illegal activities their right to privacy no longer exists. So, you must excuse me if I fail to recognize the strength of your argument, Drake. Besides the rules of the game for spying are very different from civil law, there is no real comparison to be made there.

Like I said above. I have no problems with worrying about these actions. If my neighbor had an atomic bomb in his basement I would be worried too. However, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. (Unless the glass is fortified, then it's ok.)

[Anonymous]

Like I said, The United States has countless Nuclear Weapons, so I think it is quite hypocritical when they say that other countries should not have them as well.

THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html)

We're allowed to posess nuclear weapons.

[Pete]

Because you could kill anyone who tried to take them away countless times before he blinked!

[Old Friend]

The 1st source you provided is a good one. However, you must be mentally impaired if you honestly took that message away from the article. Virtually every topic sentence affirmed the fact that it was North Korea who has initiated this diplomatic crisis. Below I will quote some of the more obvious inferences for you, since you didn’t seem to comprehend them the first time around.

1.)”North Korea’s decisions to restart nuclear installations at Yongbyon that were shut down under the U.S.-North Korean Agreed Frame-work of 1994 and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty create an acute foreign policy problem for the United States.”

2.) “In mid-January 2003, the Bush Administration attempted to develop a new strategy toward North Korea after North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, reopened nuclear installations shut down under the 1994 U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework, expelled monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and demanded new negotiations with the United States.”

3.)”The Bush Administration disclosed on October 16, 2002, that North Korea had revealed to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly in Pyongyang that it was conducting a secret nuclear weapons program based on the process of uranium enrichment. North Korea admitted the program in response to U.S. evidence presented by Kelly. The program is based on the process of uranium enrichment, in contrast to North Korea’s pre-1995 nuclear program based on plutonium reprocessing. North Korea began a secret uranium enrichment program after 1995 reportedly with the assistance of Pakistan. North Korea provided Pakistan with intermediate range ballistic missiles in the late 1990s. The Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement in December 2002 that North Korea likely could produce anatomic bomb through uranium enrichment in 2004.”

4.)”Pyongyang long has emphasized “intimidation tactics” in its diplomacy; and since October 2002 it has issued other threats including a resumption of long-range missile tests and stepped-up proliferation of weapons to other countries.”

You basically cut and pasted the combination of words that best suited your position. You hacked the content of the article to reflect what you wanted it to say. You created a lie out of a very thoughtful work. You are a butcher, and a liar. Probably the most evident intellectual dishonesty, committed by you, was when you cut the first part of this message;

“The main elements of Bush Administration policy are (1) terminating the Agreed Framework; (2) assembling an international coalition to pressure North Korea; and (3) proposing a dialogue with North Korea that focuses on actions by North Korea to end its nuclear program.”

and spliced it with various allegations made on the part of the North Korean’s, to read;

“The main elements of the Bush Administration policy are (1) terminating the Agreed Framework... In November 2002, the Administration's intiative led the Korean Penisula Development Organization (KEDO, the international body adminstering the 1994 Agreed Framework) to suspend heavy oil shipments to North Korea - a key component of the Agreed Framework...President bush issued a statement on June 6, 2001, outling policy objectives related to implementation of the US-North 1994 Agread Framework…”

It is obvious, to anyone who actually read the document, that the policy provisions mentioned in the original work were referring to Bush’s policy, after the fact. It says, ‘in light of recent aggressions by the North Koreans, Bush has moved to nullify our obligations under the 1994 agreement, use other nations with interests in that area to exert pressure on them, and use diplomatic means to start a dialogue'. Everyone, who has been watching these developments, knows that offers to talk were actually extended, after the president stated we did not wish to talk. This gesture was treated with distain by the North Koreans, who promptly threatened to ‘nuke us’.

Everyone, I invite you to also read the article, and see for yourselves how intellectually dishonest Pete was being, when he falsified his source. Pathetic. Truly pathetic. I don’t know if I should take the time to look at the other sources he referred to me. Since I am skeptical of his ability to accurately reflect what was actually written, I don’t think I will be wasting any more of my time. I will just operate under the assumption that he is full of shit.

According to this source the 2003 date for the light water reactors was a "target date". However, since groundbreaking for the LWR's didn't start until August 2002, it is reasonable to conclude that KEDO was being realistic when they pushed the projected completion date to 2007, after initial construction began in 1997. Obviously, we were spending billions of dollars to facilitate our end of the bargain.

Our oil shipments under the agreement continued until they were cut off in November 2002, after revelations were given to the extent of North Korea's violation of the 1994 pact. I am not sure, but they may have been reinstated, which I whole-heartly disagree with. In addition to cutting off oil shipments, I believe we should cut off food shipments, and move toward heavy embargoes, after we bomb their nuclear installations. The 1994 policy of appeasement won Jimmy Carter the Nobel Peace Prize. It's ironic that this communist sympathizer's agreement to pay ransom to dictators has fallen apart and remains one of the most likely causes of another global war.

[Old Friend]

Are you an American, Pete? I am just curious, since you took a credible source and used it to argue on the side of the N. Koreans. The source you used provided an objective account of what has transpired in that region, but you clip the shit out of it to present the United States in a bad light. I surely hope that more people read the source for themselves and do not rely on your summation of it, as they would be left uninformed by your account.

If you are an American, you should hang your head in shame, as you are more apt to side with the madmen who wish to destroy our nation, than the country that has upheld your rights to the freedoms you enjoy. Why are you part of the blaim America first crowd, especially with respect to an issue that i clearly black and white. I totally disagree with you. It is North Korea that is at fault here. Well, I suppose some of the blaim should rightfully go to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, two of America's worst pinkos since the Second Red Scare. Disgusting.

[Pete]

Definitily not American. And proudo f that fact!

Sometimes, old friend, you must look beyond the topid sentences. I combined the information of FAS with the other research I did, and made conclusions from there. I did admitt that it was partially North Korea's fault. But not completely, if you read my conclusion. You cannot say America is free from blame. I looked at the framework and looked at what I read. The FAS was not completely objective either. My second source shows that the violations of the Treaty (the light reactor part) wher enot because of the N. Koreans. It was before they used the rods, was it not, that the deadline was unilaterealy pushed back 5 years...

As for the dishonesty, you cannont take everything they say as a truth. As I said I am going by close-to-neutral new services that I cannot find the manuscript for, and when I see something inside an article that if I could provide links to I would, I leave it out. I know that I butchered it, the first part rather badly.

"According to this source the 2003 date for the light water reactors was a "target date". However, since groundbreaking for the LWR's didn't start until August 2002, it is reasonable to conclude that KEDO was being realistic when they pushed the projected completion date to 2007, after initial construction began in 1997. Obviously, we were spending billions of dollars to facilitate our end of the bargain. "

You see, the fact that the ground breaking only begain in 2002 must say something to you. It as almost pushing N. Korea to violate in a way. Saying 'here is your reactor, we are starting now although it will not be ready for some time after teh agreed because we started so late, who cares?' Did you not read that they started training in June 2002, it was supposed to be open in 2003, the technincians need more then a year of training. That alone points out that delay tatics where used.

Don't think I am looking at it black and white. If you think that you truly didn't read my second to last post, you are closer to black and white then I am at the moment it seems.

Comeon Norm, do resort to burn tatics, you are above that!

[Xvall]

I still think it is hypocritical, DC. I don't like the fact that certain countries are allowed certain things while others are not, as it seems very unfair to me.

[Old Friend]

You see, the fact that the ground breaking only begain in 2002 must say something to you. It as almost pushing N. Korea to violate in a way. Saying 'here is your reactor, we are starting now although it will not be ready for some time after teh agreed because we started so late, who cares?' Did you not read that they started training in June 2002, it was supposed to be open in 2003, the technincians need more then a year of training.

I agree you must look beyond the topic sentences. However, I was purely pointing out the obvious fact that the paper did not suggest what you had claimed. Regarding the construction of the LWR, your source says the first groundbreaking occurred in 1997. The project began prior to 2002. Such projects are completed according to a specific outline or blueprint. Step 2 can not be started until step 1 has been completed. I would venture to guess that supporting structures, plumbing, and electrical infrastucture were to be completed prior to actually building the Reactor. The building of the reactor was in the final stages of development. I think we should investigate what the construction of a nuclear reactor entails, before accussing the United States of stall tactics.

I think the previous administration is largely guilty of setting up a policy of appeasment, and setting a dangerous precedent for the U.S response to nuclear blackmail. As far as the United States being responsible for the break down of diplomacy goes, you are wrong. The North Koreans first made aggressive moves away from the failed 1994 agreement set up by Clinton and Carter. By developing a nuclear program while we abide by our end the agreement to provide oil, food, and Light Water Reactors. Did we make a mistake by signing a pact with the devil? Yes, we did. We never should have agreed to the terms, which were purely one-sided. Instead, our policy should have been tailored in much the same way as the administration's current guidelines. By not taking a tough stance to begin with, we are partly responsible for giving the signal to the North Koreans that these tactics are acceptable. Now we will have to rectify past mistakes. That much I grant you.


Comeon Norm, do resort to burn tatics, you are above that!

Fair enough. If you can refrain from misrepresenting another source, as badly as you did, I can refrain from the personal attacks. It appears that you are interested in legitimate debate, to some degree, and I only really had a problem with what I perceived as dishonesty. If you are interested in the truth, and your only purpose is not to defame my country, I think we may have a grounds for further discussion. Do try to be more responsible in the future, as you are above that kind of butchery. Present your assertions, but do not do it under the guise of a source, unless that source actually supports your conclusions.

[Delta V]

Quote: from CheViveToday on 9:42 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
If a North Korean spy plane came near the U.S., it would be blown out of the sky. So why is the U.S. so upset that their plane was merely flown near by some other North Korean planes?


The USSR used to do that all the time, until their military went bankrupt. They used to shadow our carrier groups pretty close, too. And, like the North Koreans, we'd always send some fighters up to play. I've actually got a picture on my wall of a Soviet 'Bear' recon plane being escorted closely by a trio of Tomcats. That's how the game is played...you try to fly close enough to discourage the spy-plane's pilot, but not so close as to cause an international incident (like China's pilot did). Other than that, as long as they're in international airspace, they're not much you can do about it.

[Old Friend]

The USSR used to do that all the time, until their military went bankrupt. They used to shadow our carrier groups pretty close, too. And, like the North Koreans, we'd always send some fighters up to play. I've actually got a picture on my wall of a Soviet 'Bear' recon plane being escorted closely by a trio of Tomcats. That's how the game is played...you try to fly close enough to discourage the spy-plane's pilot, but not so close as to cause an international incident (like China's pilot did). Other than that, as long as they're in international airspace, they're not much you can do about it.

Very true, but you must admit that N. Korea is a different enemy altogether. While this game was played by both the United States and Russia during the cold war, N. Korea is in an escalation mode to try to win concessions from our government. They might not be as willing to play by the predetermined rules of the game, and are more likely to pull a stunt like the Chinese, in an effort to test or will. The best move we could make right now is to surgically strike their nuclear installations to demonstrate that we are a force to be reckoned with, and that we will not cow tow to a pissant like Mr. Il.

[IHP]

Irrespective of who the rights to do what, what isn't being considered is Japan: America's ally. Japan gives DPRK billions of yen each year, through a third party, so it would impossible for the US to neutralize funds. Also, it would take only a few minutes for missiles, nuclear or otherwise to hit Japan, so I can't see Japan making a huge stance against the DPRK.

This is off the topic, but I just thought it wise to consider the broader interests in the region.

--IHP

(Edited by i hate pinochet at 3:47 am on Mar. 14, 2003)