MSNBC Breaking News: Security Council unanimously approves resolution on N. Kore

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

[nini2287]

Can't see the resoultion, but it's probably a good move. 

I still don't think military intervention is a good idea with missiles aimed at South Korea.

[dazzleman]

My attitude is that while North Korea is a problem for the US, it is a bigger problem for Russia, China, South Korea and Japan.

I don't see why the US should have to take the lead on every problem.  The South Koreans live right next door, and have been invaded before by this insane regime.

I think it should be up to their judgment how to deal with this regime, because they'll bear the consequences of whatever policy is followed, good or bad.

If those nutcases shoot a missile at us, we should blow them off the map.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

So in other words, you want North Korea to use their nukes.

Although actually they'd probably do far more damage with their conventional weapons aimed at Seoul.

[Boris]

Yeah, we can't have military action against North Korea, not while we're bogged down in Iraq. In a post Cold War world, the United States does not have the capabilities to fight two wars anymore. Even something such as air strikes (aka a measured response) are risky.

I somewhat agree with Dazzleman. The United States should work closely with South Korea, China, and Russia to come to a resolution on this issue. North Korea isn't just our problem; let's exploit that fact in order to take them down.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Normally I'd say these sanctions didn't go far enough, but the last thing we need to do is encourage Bush to attack some other country. So I voted option 1, since we're dealing with 2 madmen here.

[Jake]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

You do realize military action means a war we can't fight? Or are you just brain dead?

[dazzleman]

Yeah, we can't have military action against North Korea, not while we're bogged down in Iraq. In a post Cold War world, the United States does not have the capabilities to fight two wars anymore. Even something such as air strikes (aka a measured response) are risky.

I somewhat agree with Dazzleman. The United States should work closely with South Korea, China, and Russia to come to a resolution on this issue. North Korea isn't just our problem; let's exploit that fact in order to take them down.

Well, in all fairness, our involvement in Iraq doesn't limit our ability to launch heavy strikes on North Korea, either nuclear or conventional.

It does, however, inhibit our ability to deal with their possible response.  Still, the brunt of it would fall on South Korea, and I think they should be in the driver's seat as far as policy is concerned.

This is one case where the US could show a better case to the world by allowing the people closest to the potential problem to set policy, since North Korea is not really a direct threat to the US.

[dazzleman]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

You do realize military action means a war we can't fight? Or are you just brain dead?

That's not necessarily true.  If there were a war there, the South Koreans would take the brunt of it, and they have a large standing army of high quality, so far as I know.

A decision for war is not just ours to make; others will bear the largest brunt of the consequences for whatever decision is made, both in terms of the fighting and the destruction the war would cause.

[Jake]

I'm using "we" as a collective here, meaning Japan, Korea, the US, China, etc. War is a) economically not viable as it will destabilize a region vital to the world economy as well as send oil through the roof if a conventional conflict begins; b) not militarilly viable for the United States to fight, as we don't have the naval vessels, not to mention ground forces, to deploy to fight (something we'd pretty much be forced to do if we start a war like Inks proposes we do); and c) not politically viable as it is a war of choice which will sink Bush further into the polls and ruin the GOP's chance for victory in 2008. For all three reasons I'm strongly opposed to a war.

[dazzleman]

I'm using "we" as a collective here, meaning Japan, Korea, the US, China, etc. War is a) economically not viable as it will destabilize a region vital to the world economy as well as send oil through the roof if a conventional conflict begins; b) not militarilly viable for the United States to fight, as we don't have the naval vessels, not to mention ground forces, to deploy to fight (something we'd pretty much be forced to do if we start a war like Inks proposes we do); and c) not politically viable as it is a war of choice which will sink Bush further into the polls and ruin the GOP's chance for victory in 2008. For all three reasons I'm strongly opposed to a war.

I generally agree, though I would think that a coalition of the US, South Korea, Russia, China and Japan ought to be able to easily beat North Korea, if it came down to it.

I don't support war at this time.  But I think we have to have a longer-range plan to get rid of that regime.  We have to make it collapse somehow.

It's a dangerous game.  We were incredibly lucky in the way the Soviets collapsed, that it didn't turn aggressive at the end, when it had nothing left to lose.  We may not have that same luck here.  But I don't think we can just keep kicking the can down the road, as we've been doing with this regime.

I think the Chinese and South Koreans are very ambivalent, at best, over the collapse of this government, because they will then have to deal with a huge refugee and humanitarian problem.  The burden that the former West Germany is carrying from when it absorbed East Germany will look like nothing next to what it would take to bring North Korea up to the level of South Korea economically.

[John Dibble]

For the most part I think it was the right move. I hate to say it though but it may take starving North Korea to bring about a collapse non-miliatarily though, which comes with rather unfortunate ethical implications.

I generally agree, though I would think that a coalition of the US, South Korea, Russia, China and Japan ought to be able to easily beat North Korea, if it came down to it.

I think it could be done, but I wouldn't describe it as easy. It wouldn't be as easy as marching troops into North Korea. They've got over a million soldiers and a lot of guns. They've also built in a lot of tunnels and other defensive measures. Of course technologically they are vastly inferior, and they lack the resources(fuel, ect.) to use their air force and armor units to anywhere near full effect. The most likely course of action would be that our troops would bunker down in a defensive position around the border and wait while our air forces bomb the crap out of military facilities and defenses. It would likely still take months or even a year or so before ground troops could be moved in in relative safety - essentially we'd be practicing modern day siege warfare, and God only knows what the regime might do to stave off the end(soylent green comes to mind on the starvation issue, I wouldn't put it past them).

[J. J.]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

So in other words, you want North Korea to use their nukes.

Although actually they'd probably do far more damage with their conventional weapons aimed at Seoul.

Actually, I want North Korea to know that if it attempts to use or sell their nukes, north Korea will be a parking lot.

[dazzleman]

Not strict enough.  I want military action.

So in other words, you want North Korea to use their nukes.

Although actually they'd probably do far more damage with their conventional weapons aimed at Seoul.

Actually, I want North Korea to know that if it attempts to use or sell their nukes, north Korea will be a parking lot.

bingo

[Frodo]

I would have preferred the sanctions to be far tougher, but if this is the best that can be concocted, I'll go along with it.  It's better than nothing at all. 

[Silent Hunter]

They should have passed arms sanctions against the regime years ago.

[dazzleman]

They should have passed arms sanctions against the regime years ago.

I agree.  That's the problem with relying on coalitions.  But in this situation, acting alone is usually not effective.

[Frodo]

It is a sad reflection on the United States that we can't get our way without the cooperation of either China or Russia. 

[dazzleman]

It is a sad reflection on the United States that we can't get our way without the cooperation of either China or Russia. 

I don't agree. 

Russia and China (as well as South Korea and Japan) ultimately have a higher stake in this situation because they're closer.  We're one nation, with about 6% of the world's population.  We should not expect to be able to single-handedly exert our will everywhere at the same time, nor should we assume responsibility for doing so.

We've gotten too used to the unilateralism of the early post-cold war era.  During the cold war, there were severe constraints on what we could do, and in a way, it's only healthy that some of those constraints would return.  This might allay the feeling of impotence in many countries, and help reduce their resentment towards us that comes from the feeling that we control their fate, and there's nothing they can do about it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah, we can't have military action against North Korea, not while we're bogged down in Iraq. In a post Cold War world, the United States does not have the capabilities to fight two wars anymore. Even something such as air strikes (aka a measured response) are risky.

I somewhat agree with Dazzleman. The United States should work closely with South Korea, China, and Russia to come to a resolution on this issue. North Korea isn't just our problem; let's exploit that fact in order to take them down.

Nowhere did I say we had to attack.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm using "we" as a collective here, meaning Japan, Korea, the US, China, etc. War is a) economically not viable as it will destabilize a region vital to the world economy as well as send oil through the roof if a conventional conflict begins; b) not militarilly viable for the United States to fight, as we don't have the naval vessels, not to mention ground forces, to deploy to fight (something we'd pretty much be forced to do if we start a war like Inks proposes we do); and c) not politically viable as it is a war of choice which will sink Bush further into the polls and ruin the GOP's chance for victory in 2008. For all three reasons I'm strongly opposed to a war.

if you hadn't noticed, bush is up

[Boris]

Yeah, we can't have military action against North Korea, not while we're bogged down in Iraq. In a post Cold War world, the United States does not have the capabilities to fight two wars anymore. Even something such as air strikes (aka a measured response) are risky.

I somewhat agree with Dazzleman. The United States should work closely with South Korea, China, and Russia to come to a resolution on this issue. North Korea isn't just our problem; let's exploit that fact in order to take them down.

Nowhere did I say we had to attack.

WTF does "military action" mean, then? And I never specifically mentioned "attack" either; its implied. 

[Jake]

if you hadn't noticed, bush is up

Bush was up after the beginning of the Iraq War too. Where is he now?