Important Program about North Korea Starting soon! Watch it!

Bill- I don't get that channel. Will there be a link to the story?

I've searched for it before, but can never find it online, sorry.

I can tell you it will be replayed at 5 if that helps. Make you neighbor with DTV watch it! :wink:

Sorry Bill.

I agree that North Korea presents a serious threat.

The phrase "... at any cost" is a bit problematic.

Tell me how that show turns out in the end.

What do you think? What're the odds for Iran and N. Korea to be the next target of the United Warlords of America?
I'm not too sure yet, but maybe you guys get a little wiser by watching that report.

Iran and N. Korea know that the US is weakened by our little adventure in Iraq. Iran knows we don't have the troops, money or national will to invade another country.

This is one of the costs of the Iraq war. Iran is a whole lot stronger. We probably can no longer stop them from going nuclear.

They wouldn't dare to try if we weren't so bloodied by Iraq. What a mess!

The link to that program is HERE.


However, after having read all that (and after having seen than film some years ago*) - there come quite a few other 'bad stories' in other countries in my mind. No reason, however, that someone "needs to be stopped at any cost", IMHO.

*The documentary is from 1998/99, btw, and had been broadcasted quite a few times.

Containment would definitely be the best possible outcome.
I'm also concerned about the 'at any cost' wording. Sometimes, we really need to do serious cost/benefit analyses. What can we (globally) do with the resources/options we really have?

Well ebrown, looks like we need another Pearl Harbor here to mobilize the Americans once again.
No...just playing. I wish you guys all the best Kerry gets elected and turns out to be far less of a bloodthursty bastard than Bush and Co.

berth, containment is what worked a few decades ago when the Soviets and the Americans faced each other.
That was a clear black-white face to face battle between two nations.
Today it's a whole lot different. It's a grey hidden person versus a country. Something called "consolidation" or "let's stop killing innocent people around the world whose left behind family members come for us to kick our freakin fat MCDo's-butties" would work a lot better for me.

As near as I can figure by the comments here; only Walter and I have seen this program. It has nothing to do with Iraq, or perceived threats to the United States. It has to do with the millions of North Korean's who are suffering fates too horrible to fathom. Containment, ehBeth, has so far resulted in MILLIONS of victims. MILLIONS.

Kim Jong Il is not now, nor has he ever been, a threat to the United States of America. That isn't the criteria I use to identify our enemies. This prick is very much our enemy.

The program airs again in 2 minutes, if anyone is interested.

bookmark

I guess we must have different understandings of containment, O'Bill, as I don't think there has been any containment of the situation in North Korea.

I'd agree that containment, in terms of simply keeping the problem 'there' and out of our faces, is not an acceptable response.

Bill, I didn't have the chance to watch the program.

I still am worried about the phrase "...stopped at any cost".

Assuming (and I think this is a safe assumption) that an invasion of North Korea would involve more troops, more money, more time and more casualties than Iraq... are you still suggesting this?

What other options do we have?

ehBeth, darling... How else would you define containment in terms of despots?

A pity. I would like for all people to see it in hopes they may better understand what a horror North Korean Life is. This film isn't political and it isn't propaganda. I believe it is a somber revelation of the truth.

I see that (I just hope you can accept my explanation, without calling me names. ) No worries my friend. The people of the United States have not yet seen fit to elect me king.

Not exactly... but if that was the only way to intervene; I would without question. You would have a hard time arguing that the innocent death toll wouldn't have been lower had we not let this problem fester so long in the first place. Inaction has killed millions. Literally.


If I were in charge? (you asked for it) Surround him with our navy... Exile/Regime change ultimatum... with serious consequences..., which would of course probably be in vain... Lightning decapitation strike! Simultaneously strike every military installation and Yong Byon with overwhelming force. Make it abundantly clear that there will be no ground battle... just a relentless firestorm from hell until such time as Kim is removed. If he attempts to send a nuke to Seoul, Pyongyang will be vaporized... that's right, I said it and yes, I'm quite serious. If China attempts to interfere (again) we will consider it a declaration of war against the United States and respond in kind. Beijing wouldn't dare... as long as they knew we were serious (and were I in charge, there would be no doubt about that :wink: ). As you've pointed out, our low-tech weaponry and supply is somewhat depleted, though not nearly as badly as you suggest. Our high-tech weaponry cache is untouched, unmatched and unmistakably the most powerful arsenal mankind has ever known. A true declaration of war against the United States is National Suicide for the declaring party, and even if you don't know it; rest assured the leaders of the world do.

I understand most people think I am mad for suggesting such a thing… because millions could be killed in a nuclear exchange. It is my dissenting opinion that millions of people will be killed, in a nuclear exchange, if we don't topple the last of the despots soon. The longer we wait, the more people will die. In this technologically miraculous age, proliferation of WMD gets easier every day. I further submit that in North Korea millions have already been killed, without a single WMD being used. For 50 years we've been ignoring this problem while generation after generation suffers untold horrors behind a veil of secrecy. During the cold war; the consequences of action may have been more deadly than inaction. I don't think that could be convincingly argued for the last decade. Kim is more vicious than his father was, kills in greater numbers and lacks the communist support that helped sustain the country during his father's reign. Add to that the fact that he's building long-range missiles, processing plutonium and has a history of terrorist behavior. Hmmmmm.

You asked me what other options do we have? I pose the same question to you, with equal sincerity. The status quo has allowed millions to die while a mass murderer improves his ability to commit mass murder. Economic sanctions result in the innocent people starving to death because the soldiers, not the masses, consume the food aid. Excess aid is sold on the black market to buy more weapons. Any internal talk of change results in the speaker's entire family being tortured to death. Possession of a camera, or other means to record the suffering of the North Koreans, is a capital offense. People are so hungry, they die from attempting to eat grass and bark and sometimes even resort to eating other people. Generation after generations with no hope whatsoever; while we kick back and contemplate the risks of helping them. The truth is: There never was a good time to deal with this, and frankly, there never will be. But it is work that needs to be done.

The agreed framework was an idealistic long shot that proved to be exactly what it looked like: A ransom paid in hopes the killer would stop killing. He didn't. He simply improved his ability to do so, with our money, while he killed like never before. Same basic result with the Sunshine Policy: Turned out to cumulate into yet another massive bribe that resulted in improved weaponry while the masses starved. How much is enough? How long do we wait? Is it none of our business when a monster, like his father before him, oppresses people in ways to hideous to discuss on a website without age verification? Is 50 years of systematic horrors enough? I say it's way more than enough.

I will be happy to discuss these statements with anyone who can do so like an adult. I am not crazy, ignorant or fascist and I don't lack education. I am as disgusted by unnecessary death as anyone I know. I don't love war and no I don't plan on volunteering to go to NK. I would be fascinated to learn of a peaceful way to stop the monster Kim without resorting to violence or ignoring the plight of the millions now suffering. That would be something I have not been able to conjure up on my own or my extreme solution wouldn't have come up at all. Contrary to popular opinion, like all sane people, I prefer nonviolent solutions to the world's problems. But, I have no illusion that there exists one for each of the world's problems (I do think I figured one out for Israel/Palestine though ). That should be enough to get you started. :wink: Fire away!

Edit= Fixed a quote bracket

A single shot from 1/2 mile away by a highly trained sharp shooter. Make sure he looks korean and can speak the lingo.

Yeah how cool would that be. And don't forget to get some other dictator in charge who's loyal towards the Holy Superiorty States of Superhumans after you killed the other sick bastard.

Bill,

I don't believe I have ever called you a name. I wouldn't vote for you, but I would be happy to buy you a beer if we ever meet.

Needless to say I disagree with you. Iraq is costing billions of dollars and hundreds of US casualties. Korea would cost even more. The invasion you envision is unthinkable to me.

It is a mistake to think this will be cheap. The "airstrike only" option you envision is fantasy. There will be a ground battle. North Korea has a million ground troops that will head for South Korea. The US will have no choice but to fight a ground campaign.

It is, of course, possible that North Korea will capitulate, or that the war will be quick-- but I wouldn't count on it.

You never know with war. But we do know that NK has millions of troops, artillery shells and missles. We will need to be on the ground to stop a disaster with millions of South Koreans. This has the potential to be a complete disaster-- this time before the occupation and clean up.

You are arguing that the moral imperitive to stop a brutal despot in North Korea is worth the cost- both financial and human. I disagree, but I respect your decision.

But don't underestimate the horrible terrible cost of this campaign. A war with North Korea will almost certainly mean the deaths of millions of Koreans and US troops as well.

There is also the real risk of a true disaster.