KRC

I disagree. The U.S. economy is too heavily based on the results. We need input on how things are resolved.

The absolute hatred for Japan. You also have the colonization of the Korean Peninsula by Japan, which the DPRK has not forgotten. Any opportunity to go after Japan would be welcomed by the DPRK. They would do it now, if they had the chance. In fact, I see an attack of Japan happening before I see the DPRK invading the ROK. If they wanted to get back at the U.S. over the nuke issue, they would not want to attack the ROK. They would immediately lose the support they are getting from them. They would attack Japan. The "getting two birds with one stone" approach. They get back at Japan for the colonization thingy and stick it to the U.S. at the same time (economically and it would force the U.S. to use resources up to defend Japan). The DPRK will not be content with just re-unification under DPRK rule. They want to strike Japan and they would feel that they could use the combined resources (DPRK military and ROK money, at least what is left) to attack Japan. IMO, I do not see it as fear-mongering but the next logical step by them.

He has the capabilities to do it, but I do not think that he will. If he attacks anyone, I am guessing that he will attack Japan first. He has the ROK right where he wants them. An attempt to re-unify the country would be great for his legacy, but he knows that he would be quickly trounced. Unlike the first Korean War, KJI would not have the backing of Russia and China if he were to invade the ROK. I do not think that it would replace the aid from China, Russia, the UN, etc. The ROK resources depend on the global marketplace. Once you remove that, there is nothing. The DPRK would remove the free market immediately, which would mean immediate collapse. Also, there is no way he could divert enough money to the military to keep them loyal after an attack of that magnitude. They would turn on him pretty quick. A DPRK takeover of the ROK would be economic collapse for the peninsula, followed by the region, possibly followed by the world. I do not see China dealing with Taiwan if things got to the brink of war on the Korean Peninsula. They have too much at stake on the Peninsula to strike Taiwan at the same time. IMO, all of their focus would be on the Koreas.

You are correct. It is an option I overlooked. The DPRK wants to re-unify under DPRK rule. The ROK wants to re-unify under ROK rule. Obviosuly, re-unification is desired by both sides. The problem is in implimentation. This impacts more then just the region, especially economically. To re-unify under DPRK rule (regardless of whether it happens diplomatically or by military force) would mean economic collapse not only of the Korean Peninsula, but on the world markets. The ROK is heavily invested un the U.S. mortgage market. What would happen if the ROK money suddenly dried up? What about technology? How many Korean-made products do we use on a regular basis? All of that will disappear as money will be diverted to the military. After the takeover, the new Korea will now attack Japan. Again, what is the global economic impact of an attack on Japan? Not good. To re-unify under ROK rule would also lead to serious economic issues. Take a look at the economic impact of the reunification of the two Germany's. This situation would be a hell of a lot worse. The DPRK has nothing. Millions of people have nothing to contribute to the overall society (no training in anything but farming), but will be a serious financial drain on social services. The ROK will have an extremely difficult time absorbing that, even with the billions of dollars that would flood in from other countries (U.S., China, Japan, Russia, probably the EU, etc). The second option is the best, but both are potentially disasterous. If anything, you need to keep the DPRK in place, but have them reform to a global free-market system. This is the approach that is currently being implimented. Free Zones are being built across the ROK border into the DPRK. Financial incentives are given to companies who are willing to locate in one of these Zones in the DPRK. The problem is that previous attempts at opening up the country have met with resistance from KJI. He allowed cell phone use within the country. Once he saw that "western" information was making it into the country, he immediately shut it down. Until you get KJI (or any successor) to open up, it will be difficult to get them to assimilate into the global arena. In order to do this properly, you need to reform the juche (self-reliance) and Songun Chongchi (military first) policies. These are so ingrained into the DPRK mindset, it will take a generation or two to make progress.

I fully agree. No two situations require the same solutions. This is what troubled me the most when the Iraq discussions were ramping up. Opponents kept saying "why not invade North Korea?" Different situation. Diplomacy was and is still working in North Korea. It failed miserably in Iraq. Different problems. Different solutions.

I have no read on either son as to how they would rule. My guess is that Nam would be like daddy, especially if he needs to take control (it is not given to him). Jul is a crap-shoot. I have made the status quo point in the past. China wants status quo. If the government falls apart, then you will have a flood of refugees into China and the ROK. Neither wants that and I doubt the ROK can afford it. Keeping the DPRK where it is makes for a happy China. The problem is that China knows that the DPRK is falling apart. They keep sending money and aid to them, but it is not helping. The ROK is doing the same. In fact, I think the ROK is now sending more to the DPRK than China. I do not have numbers to back it up, but all of the recent things I have been seeing have outweighed what China has been sending them. There is no question that the U.S. needs to have serious discussions with all of the regional partners (I imagine those discussions started years ago) about a DPRK collapse.

You can't cut out the ROK. There is no question they are the weakest link, but to cut and run from the ROK would be disasterous. We are the only thing keeping the DPRK from assimilating the ROK. Having the DPRK take over the ROK would not be good for anyone in the region, especially Japan. You also need to see the amount of money that the ROK has invested in the U.S. If the ROK is taken over, our mortgage market would collapse.

One possibility is KJI's eldest son, Kim Jong Nam (son of one of KJI's mistresses). He was being groomed for the position, but he was tossed out of the DPRK in May of 2001 (trying to enter Japan) and went to Austria. Senior DPRK officials have been to Austria, presumedly to prepare for Kim Jong Nam to return to the DPRK, but this has not been confirmed. Supposedly he is living in China now. The other possibility is KJI's other son Kim Jong Jul. Jul is the son of KJI's most recent partner, Ko Young Hee. In DPRK custom, "An heir must be the child of a woman a king loves." Since Ko Young Hee is his most recent partner and she is the mother of Kim Jong Jul, it stands to reason that Jul may be the successor. In 2003, the army started a campaign to promote Ko Young Hee ("The Respected Mother is the Most Faithful and Loyal Subject to the Dear Leader Comrade Supreme Commander."). Since the eventual leader needs the backing of the army, this leads me to believe that Jul is the favorite. This is even more apparent when you compare the army's most recent campaign for Ko Young Hee with the campaign for KJI's mother when Kim Il Sung was getting long in the tooth. I would not be shocked to see Jul get the nod and Nam attempt a coup. This would topple the government since Nam does not have the support of the military.

Here are possible scenarios to address the DPRK nuclear situation and my opinions of each option. DIPLOMACY Continue with multi-lateral discussions IMO, the best move. There are signs of real progress here. I know that people do not like Bush’s foreign policy, but I have to say that Bush has handled this situation beautifully. There have been a few stumbling blocks, namely with a few things Condi Rice has said, but overall things have progressed very well. Unfortunately, success/failure of this situation will not rest with Bush, but with the next administration. Long-term solutions need time. Bush is going for a long-term solution. This will take things into the next administration. I will be paying very close attention to the presidential candidates to see how they would handle the DPRK issue. As I mentioned, Bush is looking at the situation long-term. The first 3 years was dedicated to correcting the mess created by the previous administration. The DPRK knew that all they had to do was throw a hissy fit and the U.S would bribe them to keep quiet. Then Bush took office and the attitude drastically changed. With previous U.S. foreign policy moves, they thought that they could just make things ugly and the U.S. would not have the spine to see things through. Bush proved them wrong, but it took a while for it to sink in. As the DPRK realized that they were not going to receive bribes to keep quiet, they needed to make some modifications to their tactics. The fundamentals remained the same, but overt tactics needed to change. Everything they tried to toss at the U.S. failed to some degree. The only thing they really had going for them was the ROK. As discussions progressed and the DPRK ratcheted up the rhetoric, the ROK became more afraid of what the DPRK would do in retaliation. As a result, the ROK took a few pages from the Clinton administration and started tossing bribes towards the DPRK in hopes that it would spare them. As usual, the DPRK took full advantage of this and are raping them. The end result of the ROK bribes: the DPRK asking for more. This is what they do. Once they receive one concession from their opponent, they continue to press for more. If the answer is no, then they turn up the rhetoric to instill fear. If that does not work, they threaten to walk away from negotiations. If that does not work, they actually walk away. The DPRK just needed the fear angle to get the ROK to cave. They still have plenty of room to work on the ROK. Currently, most of the negotiating partners are on the same page. They all want a resolution to this issue and they want it done diplomatically. They do not want military action, they do not want sanctions by the U.S. and they do not want the U.N. involved. The differences remain in how far things go to get the DPRK to comply. All realize that the Agreed Framework was a failure. The ROK is scared and they are the weakest of the negotiating partners. Special attention needs to be paid to them to keep them on board. China is growing more intolerant of the DPRK and has stepped things up. Russia has been quietly supporting the U.S. position, as long as sanctions are not applied. Japan has been firmly on the U.S. side, including the use of sanctions and referral to the U.N. There have been a few differences in opinion from Japan, but they are solidly behind the U.S. Switch to bi-lateral discussions Bad move. It failed under Clinton and will continue to fail under any other administration. You need the strength of the multi-lateral discussion format in order to put the DPRK in their place. What you may gain in speed to an agreement will be drastically undercut by the speed at which the DPRK will break the agreement. The talks in 1993/1994 and the Agreed Framework are a model of how not to negotiate with the DPRK. See above for why you need multi-lateral instead of bi-lateral discussions. Abandon the talks and use other methods Other methods here include PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), UN sanctions, U.S. sanctions and anything else I cannot think of at the moment. PSI-There have been real successes with this program and it is making things more difficult for the DPRK to conduct their business. It has not stopped everything, but the program is still pretty young. Give it a little more time and you will see it become more effective, especially as more countries sign on. U.N. Sanctions – This will never happen. The U.N. has already shown that they do not have the guts to address this situation. When it was mentioned a few years ago, all the DPRK had to say was “any action by the United Nations will be considered an act of war.” After that statement, the U.N. could not run away fast enough. Even if the U.N. were to take this topic up, China would veto any action, thereby making the U.N. useless and irrelevant on this matter. U.S. Sanctions – The U.S. needs to be careful here. They can very easily tick off the other negotiating partners and lose their support. This would have to be the last option and it would take a while before things would get to this point. As I mentioned, China is growing tired of the DPRK and wants this to end. At some point, they will support more drastic measures like sanctions, but not now. If China bought into it, then Russia will buy into it. Japan is already on board. The problem gets back to the ROK. I do not see them ever supporting sanctions relating to the nuclear program. They did support the sanctions over the money laundering and counterfeiting, but they do not support it over the nuclear program. They want to stick with diplomacy and bribes. Hopefully, they will see the light soon. They have already shelled out billions to the DPRK in bribes with no effect. They cannot afford to give them much more. MILITARY ACTION Pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities The ROK has stated that they will not support any military action against the DPRK. Polls have been conducted in the ROK and most of the young people in the ROK would support the DPRK if the U.S. were to strike the DPRK. You would lose the support of China and Russia. Japan would probably support this, but they would want security assurances from the U.S. before signing off on anything. Any strikes against nuclear facilities in the DPRK would result in retaliation against the ROK and/or Japan. Of course, any retaliation against either of those two countries would suck the U.S. into full-out war. Full-out war with North Korea with the U.S. striking the first blow I cannot see anything positive coming out of this move. The DPRK will strike back with everything they have (nukes, chemicals, bio-weapons, etc). They will not roll over like Iraq. This will be extremely bloody and nasty. As mentioned previously, the ROK will not support any military action against the DPRK. Japan will not support anything without security assurances. China would fight against the U.S. Russia would probably stay out of it for a little while, but would get sucked in and fight against the U.S. Basically, the ROK and Japan would be decimated by the DPRK. MISCELLANEOUS I think I covered the main options, but feel free to add anything I may have missed. My personal preference is to combine multi-lateral discussions with PSI. During the multi-lateral discussions, bi-lateral sidebars work. From the beginning, the DPRK wanted bi-lateral discussions only. The reasoning is that this puts them on an even negotiating plane with the U.S. This is obviously not a good thing. Having bi-lateral sidebars gives a small concession to the DPRK, while still keeping the DPRK on a lower negotiating plane from the U.S and the other negotiating partners. Sanctions relating to the nuclear program will cause strife with the other negotiating partners. The U.S., however, has used sanctions for other issues. Currently, the U.S. is imposing sanctions for money laundering and counterfeiting of U.S. currency by the DPRK. This has gained support from all other partners (including the reluctant ROK). Even China has stated that the DPRK cannot try to tie the current sanctions to the nuclear talks. Thoughts?

You guys are toying with me now, aren't you? Sounds like another good thread topic: Options for the North Korean situation. I'll put something together.

This is my first choice. You cannot leave something just because it is difficult. We started it, we stay until the Iraqi government can take control of everything. The Iraqi government will dictate when we start leaving. At least, that is my preference. Dumb move, IMO. Iraq cannot govern itself yet, nor provide what the citizens need. They need help. It should be a gradual turnover. We start withdrawing when Iraqi forces (police and military) can assume control of the functions we are currently providing. This will be done slowly and at the pace the Iraqi government dictates. I do not think the country is ready for a withdrawal, yet. We need to stick around a little longer. Nope. Not a smart move and you will create more problems. Again, nope. What I would see happening with this is one or two of the countries will gang up on the smaller of the three and take over. Once they do that, then the remaining two will fight it out. I think you need to leave the country intact. I think you pretty much covered most of the major scenarios. It is pretty clear what my opinions are on this. We stick around until the Iraqi government tells us that they can control things. We withdraw at a slow pace. As the Iraqi government can take control of a function, we turn it over to them and shift forces to another area of concentration. Once we see Iraq taking over enough functions that we have too many people there, then we start to withdraw. There is no set timetable and there should be no set timetable. It happens when it happens. I am glad you brought this topic up. It is too bad that nobody else thought of doing it. I see good discussions coming out of this.

I have known lawyers who can have a very reasonable discussion and you do not have to worry about your words being manipulated (or fabricated). There are some on this board who are lawyers who you can have discussions with on issues. Mickey is not one of them. It is very apparent that he is dishonest and cares more about twisting things to suit his own purposes than he is in having honest discussions.

Mickey has proven that he is incapable of having an honest discussion on issues. BiB tried that this week and gave up. Until that changes, there is no reason to give any of his posts any serious consideration.

They seem to happen more often now. Of course, it is everyone elses fault. He is not responsible for the content of his posts.

Ironic that you complain about people not responding to the substance of a post and just attacking the poster with a post not addressing the substance of a post and just attacking the poster. Do you even realize your hypocrisy or have you been doing it for so long that you know nothing else?

Uhhh...Ok...It is everyone elses fault you are a DNC hack. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You are a left-wing hack because you have basically become everything you claimed to despise in RichInOhio. There is no difference between the two of you.

He has basically become a joke here. As you mentioned, he used to be a good poster. Now, he is just a dishonest DNC hack.

Not always. The places I have been in let you play for free. Of course, they get upset if you do not buy a drink or food.

I was watching the SWE-SUI women's match last night. Good stuff. Especially when you go to an extra end and the match goes down to the last rock. I have to say that I enjoyed it. I still do not understand all of the terminology, but it was fun to watch. My wife also liked what little she saw of it.

It's almost as predictable as your responses on the board. Imagine that.

It is all there. Look at the first link. About midway through the page, there are listings by group, by region, by incident, etc. Anything you want to know about terrorism seems to be there. They have a good section on terrorist groups, including a listing of all terrorist incidents by that group. It is definitely a site you need to take your time with, as it provides a wealth of valuable information.

I read a thesis for my WMD class about the propensity for religious groups to use WMD's. McVeigh was part of that analysis. If I can dig it up, I will send it to you. Very interesting read.

BiB provided this a while back and this is another good time to re-post it: Terrorism Database Here are things like you mentioned: Incidents

Two terrorists were from the U.A.E. Two American terrorists blew up the building in Oklahoma City. The concept is the same. To say differently would be hypocritical.

How dare the government be too efficient.