North Korean General: 'War Is Inevitable'

[underpants]

For what it's worth
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2585531&page=1

Oct. 19, 2006 — If President Bush continues to ask North Korea to "kneel," war "will be inevitable," and it would begin on the Korean Peninsula, North Korean Gen. Ri Chan Bok told "Good Morning America" anchor Diane Sawyer, in an exclusive interview inside North Korea.

When talking about the possibility of talks, the general said the country didn't care if the talks were bilateral or six-party, but he said the sanctions must be lifted for progress to begin.




"He keeps talking about North Korea as the 'axis of evil,' as an outpost of tyranny, as an unacceptable government that makes its own people hungry," he said.



"We would ask him please to stop making these bad comments on our nation, and I'm speaking not just for myself but for all people in this country."

[Delphinus]

1. Well,

if they are letting their own people starve, they do need to do something about that.

[coalition_unwilling]

20. Interesting factoid about North Korea and starvation:

Apparently, one month before the armistice that led to the semi-permanent partition of North and South Korea in the early '50s, the U.S. Strategic Air Command mounted a bombing campaign on North Korean dams and hydro projects with the express purpose of flooding the rice fields and thereby starving the North Koreans into submission.

If our government engaged (and engages) in actions that by any reasonable post-Nuremburg standard can only be called war crimes and crimes against humanity, don't "we" need to do "something about that"?

Just curious.

[enigma000]

21. Persecuting leaders over events of 50 years ago?

Whatever actions taken by the UN sanctioned allies half a century ago (which may have helped bring NK and China to a peace settlement) has nothing to do with the current North Korean regime's gross negligence in feeding its people.

You want to try your current leaders, go ahead. But no change in US leadership is going to make the North Korean leadership any less belligerent internationally or more progressive domestically.

[hogwyld]

37. I have to disagree with you on your 2nd point

Nk was at least talking when Clinton was in office. Once we get another Dem president, and both houses under Dem leadership, maybe Kim will talk to us. But with our own current dictator threatening everyone, why should NK bow down on it's knees?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

23. Infastructure is a legitmate military target.

Also, everything was done under UN sanction. In fact, the Korean War of 1950-1953 was a UN war, not a US war. Troops from many different nations participated.

[TroglodyteScholar]

30. a UN war?

No matter how true that may be, the US was enough of a primary actor in that war that Koreans call it the American War.

[enigma000]

32. Really? Why not the "China War"?

Of course, they probably had several wars with China before this.............

[OldSiouxWarrior]

36. Wouldn't the Chinese be the primary actor?

Also, NK started it by an invasion of the south in June, 1950. After the UN kicked them back, then the Chinese came in with over a million men, and continued to pour troops in until they had taken over a million killed.

So in terms of number of troops commited, the Chinese would be primary.

In terms of starting the war, that honor goes to NK.

Are you of the opinion that the US was the bad guy in that conflict.

BTW - It was a Democratic President in 1950, and for most of the war.

[hogwyld]

38. We were the aggressors in that we chose sides

in what was more or less a civil war. Oh, and the Chinese sent out plenty of warnings about approaching the Yalu river. Of course this cowboy nation ignored the signals/buildup, and provoked the Chinese into action. Of course, thankfully, Truman wouldn't let ol Macarthur nuke the chicoms.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

42. The decision for the North to invade was made in Moscow by Stalin.

That is not disputed. You are forgetting the context of the war in 1950. You are forgetting how Korea came to be divided in the first place. You are ignoring the entire history and are placing a modern context to it.

It was not a civil war. At the time, NK was NOT a genuinely independent nation. It was a Soviet puppet state, part of the Soviet Empire, and Kim the First took orders from Stalin. It was an attempt by the Soviet Empire to grab some strategic land. South Korea would have been, at the time, an excellent jumping off place for an invasion of Japan. The Soviets in 1946 had attempted to make MacArthur give them half of Japan. They even threatened military action, but MacArthur made a counter threat and the Soviets backed down. In the same time period, the Soviets had made several aggressive moves against the West. Berlin blockade, among others.

Kim the First had not had time to train pilots. Many of his planes were were flown by Soviet pilots. Even Mao, in 1950 was heavily dependent on Stalin.

Further, I remind you that it was the United Nations that voted to help South Korea to resist the attack from North Korea. Many nations sent troops to help.

[hogwyld]

45. I still maintain that it was a war we had no business in

NK didn't attack us, and sure, NK had help from the Soviets and Chinese. The SK had help from us. We also were the bulk of the pilots in Vietnam. There was no way in hell the Soviets would have been able to use Korea as a jumping off point to invade Japan. The Soviets did not have the amphibious nor maritime resources for such a huge gambit. If they did, they could have invaded from Sakhalin island or Vladivostok in the summer. The main reason for their defense of the NK's was to hold off the advance of capitalism at their doorsteps.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

49. It was a UN war. The UN voted to help the South.

It wasn't just a US decision. We went in as part of the UN. At the time, 1950, we had the only sizable military in the free world. Everybody else was either a small country, or still recovering from WWII, or was part of the Soviet Empire. So, naturally, the US provided the bulk of the troops, but it was still a UN operation.

[hogwyld]

50. But don't forget, in 1950, the UN was still new

and basically a US proxy at the time. During the early years, if the US wanted something at the UN, it was done. Not like it is today with a vocal opposition.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

53. No, the Soviets have a permanent seat on the security council.

The have a veto, just like we do. However, at the time that Stalin attacked, via his proxy, the Soviets were also boycotting the UN. So they weren't there to vote.

And the other UN member nations did send troops, and those troops did fight. So it was a valid, genuine UN effort.

You seem to think that we should have just given SK to Stalin. Should we have given half of Japan to Stalin when he demanded it? Should we have given up Berlin when he blockaded it? How much of the world would you have given to Stalin?

It wasn't a civil war. It was another land grab by Stalin.

[hogwyld]

54. but without our support, there would have been no

chapter 7 resolution. yeah, the soviets missing out on the vote was a political mistake for them. didn't China have a veto? I thought they also had veto power. It was in their interest to prevent the war. Don't forget, we also gave stalin Sakhalin island after the war, which used to be Japan's. As for Berlin, if it was a choice between giving Berlin to Stalin, or global holocaust, sure would have handed it over. Fortunately, we had a Dem president with the imagination to supply an airlift. Without the airlift, we would have been force to slug our way through E germany, and start WW3

[OldSiouxWarrior]

55. We were right to oppose Stalin's aggression.

In 1947 Stalin didn't have the bomb. The airlift was just as chancy. Stalin could have started shooting down the planes. That he didn't shoot the planes down shows that he wasn't ready for war, and that the land blockade was a bluff.

Communist China was not a member of the UN in 1950. Besides, in 1950, Communist China was taking orders from Stalin. It wasn't until the early 1960's the Mao began to develop independence from Russia. I remember the Sino-Soviet clashes. I remember a political cartoon from the time of the Russian bear feeding an infant dragon. Over the next three panels the dragon grew until in the fourth panel, the bear is overshadowed by the dragon and is a bit afraid of it.

Anyway opposing Stalin's aggression was the RIGHT thing to do. Or do you think we should have handed Stalin the world?

[hogwyld]

57. I didn't say hand over the world

But considering how many people the Soviets lost in WW2, he was looking for buffers between him and us. It's not like he wanted to take over Japan, western europe, or the US. What would have probably happend is the USSR would have collapsed sooner with so many responsibilities.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

59. He DID want to take over Western Europe and Japan.

He just didn't have the military power to do it. And there was the danger that it could escalate into a nuclear war. Please don't try to whitewash the Communist Empire. Democratic Presidents and congress recognized the danger and fought against it.

He didn't need South Korea as a buffer. That was a land grab, agressive war by Stalin - pure a simple.

Truman did the right thing in standing up to Stalin.

[heliarc]

56. Really?

Do you consider the WTC a "legitmate" target too? UN or not, deliberately destroying life giving farmlands is heinous and even if "sanctioned" it shouldn't be.

I want to hear a real response, because the WTC was the center of lots of commerce and our stock markets. By your own logic, it was a legitimate target for the "terrorists" to attack? Was it not?

Now some calculations of Iraqi deaths have risen to upwards of 650,000... and many of these are civilians who were killed, not by direct bombings, but because "infrastructural" targets like utilities were destroyed.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

58. The terrorists on 9-11 did not represent any state.

So that places them in a special category. They were criminals. Even if they had represented a state, then the laws of war would place them as spies because combatants are supposed to be uniformed.

However, lets modify that and suppose that an enemy had precision missiles. Then the WTC towers would be a legitimate target in a declared war.

During WWII we bombed (Well, actually the UK) German dams. Read "The Dam Busters". For that matter, we bombed entire cities. Look at the firebombing of Dresden and the Japanese cities.

The 665,000 figure doesn't hold water. They were saying 100K deaths, and are now claiming 655K, two years later. That would require about 900 additional deaths per day, and that isn't happening. However, any deaths there are too many, so even the more realistic figure of 30,000 is a horror because the war was wrong in the first place.

In modern war, the enemies' economy is what enables him to buy the tools of war, so the economy becomes a target.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

2. He speaks for Kim, NOT for the people.

In North Korea, the people have NO voice at all. If Kim decides there will be war, then there will be war. The question is if Kim has deluded himself and believes his own bullcrap.

And if Kim wants to attack South Korea, he will do lots of damage to Seoul, but his army will get chewed to pieces.

[saigon68]

3. Do they kick babies out of Incubators too?

Letting the people starve?

Hard to accomplish anything meaningful if everyone is hungry all the time.

Maybe they have cut down on the wide ass syndrome there


http://images.auctionworks.com/hi/60/60233/bigtna7251.bmp

[OldSiouxWarrior]

9. Yes, the starvation there is real and serious.

I hope you will consider Amnesty International as a good source:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa240032004

"Reliable figures on North Korea are difficult to obtain, given the lack of access and barriers to information gathering. Estimates of the number of deaths that resulted from the 1990s famine vary widely, ranging from 220,000 to 3.5 million. Some sources claim the famine destroyed between 12 and 15 percent of the total population."

[underpants]

4. Right

Kim is only concerned with his well being and that includes everyone up to him. Sounds familiar.

[shadowknows69]

5. Let me try something here

In the U.S., the people have NO voice at all. If Bush decides there will be war, then there will be war. The question is if Bush has deluded himself and believes his own bullcrap.


The mirror is so cruel sometimes isn't it?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

25. What does have to do with Kim?

The article, the topic, is about psycho North Korea leader Kim threatening to launch a war.

So, why did you post something about Bush that has absolutely nothing to do with North Korea?

[hogwyld]

39. Because, in the context he provided

It shows how the propaganda of the US media works. They try to paint Kim in the worst possible light in hope of sparking another ratings boom 24/7 war.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

43. Do you consider Amnesty International part of the US media?

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240032004

Here is an Asian sourcefrom 2002, but nothing has changed.
http://www.asiasource.org/news/at_mp_02.cfm?newsid=79637

Committe to Protect Journalists is international
http://www.cpj.org/censored/index.html

I don't rely purely on US MSM for my info.

You are trying to be supportive of Kim, who is running the most oppressive government on the planet.

[hogwyld]

46. No, I don't support Kim.

But also do not support the US imposing it's values on other countries either. If the North Koreans want Kim as their leader, so be it. If not, they can choose to overthrow their government. I'm just tired of the US meddling throughout the world.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

51. The US is concerned about Kim having a finger on a nuclear trigger.

The US policy has always, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to be against nuclear proliferation. So far, the nations that have gone nuclear have been stable enough that the nuclear firing decision has been a kept out of the control of any one person. Even during the cold war, the Soviet Premier couldn't get out of bed grumpy and order a launch. (Well, he could order it, but it wouldn't happen.) Nor can Bush order a nuke launch. He doesn't have the authority. (Exception is if the US is under nuclear attack.)

Kim is different. He has absolute total personal command, and could order a launch and have his order obeyed. And he is may sell nukes for cash. And he is genuinely delusional. He might actually believe his own crap and think he can get away with a launch.

Further, Kim having nukes pushes other countries to go nuclear, ignitine a new round of proliferation. As the number of countries with nukes increases, the odds of someone using one also increases.

Clinton didn't want Kim to have nukes either, but he was smarter about it.

Kim can stay dictator of NK until they do something about him. After all, we haven't attacked them since 1953. I don't think we should attack now. That would be a mess.

But we do need to do something about Kim having nukes. Unfortunately, Bush is not being very creative with this problem.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

35. American people DO have a voice.

Bush had to go before congress to get authorization for Iraq. And there are many voices in opposition to Bush. However, the majority in 2003 supported Bush, so we went to war.

In NK, there are NO voices opposing Kim. He kills them. Going to war for NK is purely Kim's decision.

Your attempt to claim that NK and the US are equivalent is completely wrong.

[hogwyld]

41. I wish I could share in your fantasies

Our current monarchy is in so much control, they offer the illusion of choice. But our genocidal admin has attacked more countries in 4 years than NK has in the last 60+ years. We have become our own axis of evil.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

44. Bush is NOT a dictator, nor a monarch.

I am not defending him. He has handled the Korean situation stupidly. But that doesn't make him a king. And the US is not a dictatorship. Claiming that it is a dictatorship is just delusional posturing.

[hogwyld]

48. A dictatorship is not always like a Stalin

But since the current criminals have control of the media, and have control of the voting via Diebold, is there really a choice? So * hasn't killed 20 million YET, but he's building gulags, suspending basic freedoms, allowing torture. Gee, it sounds a lot like some of the worst tyrants in history in their first 6 years in power. But give him time, I'm sure the worst is yet to come. I fear that this November is our truly last chance to put a check on this madman.

[dkofos]

27. You make him sound like bUSH

[sugapablo]

6. Solution to the North Korean Problem

How much in terms of soldiers and money has the Iraq war cost us?

I forget the figure, but let's say that the Iraq war has cost the US $100 billion.

Just offer anyone in North Korea $50 billion, plus good relations with the US should they:

a) abandon nuclear ambitions
b) bring us the head of Kim Jong Il.

What upstart NK military general is going to pass up an offer like that? ;)

Saves us lives AND money! PLus they can spend a good chunk of the $50 billion on FOOD!

[davekriss]

8. Wow, you probably think a 4 bedroom home...

...in San Francisco can be bought for $300,000, too? The Iraq War has cost approximately $335 billion to date. And that's a conservative Congressional Budget Office figure. Estimates place the total cost over $1 trillion when all is siad and done. However, your point is understood; we could hand Korea a fraction of that and avoid the mayhem. Possibly.

Reminds me of an old argument I made about the first round of Bush tax cuts. Bush was touting that the tax cuts would create a specific number of jobs. The cost of the tax expenditure (taxes not collected) amounted to about $500,000 per job created -- by Bush's own math! That amounted to handing the a rich guy a half-million per year only if he promised to hire an additional guy to trim the hedges around his tennis court (at minimum wage, of course). It would have been much more efficient and beneficial for all to simply hand $50,000 per year to 10 people at the bottom of the income ladder, but of course job creation and Main Street economics had nothing to do with the actual reasosns for the tax cuts.

[sugapablo]

10. I know...

I didn't have the figure at hand, so I was trying to use nice round numbers. :)

[CJCRANE]

11. Doesn't work like that.

Mullah Omar and Bin Laden have $25 million bounties on their heads which to a normal Taliban member is probably thousands of years of income. But they have a code of loyalty to their family and tribe, they're not motivated by wealth.

Same would go for the people in North Korea, they have a different ideology.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

13. There is also the problem of getting away with it.

$25 Mil sounds nice, but you would have to spend the rest of your life in hiding.

[kimmerspixelated]

28. Excellent idea, really.

[Parche]

12. nk

Let me guess it will start 6Novembra???

[geek tragedy]

14. It's a 'secret plan.' eom

[Megahurtz]

15. Uh, he wants the Country to "kneel down"?

What the fuck? :wtf: Am I really seeing this???

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Well, yes.

Bush is demanding that NK concede the diplomatic debate before he will enter into diplomacy. IOW, if you don't do what I say when I say it, I will punish you -- then we will talk about it. From NK's POV, the debate is if they should have nuclear technology. * demands they give up nuclear technology before he will talk to them. Never mind the so-called six-party talks. That's just * pressuring NK's neighbors into ganging up on NK, which the neighbors are doing because they figure unbalanced heavy-heanded diplomacy is better than no diplomacy at all, which is what we'd have without the 6-party talks. * will no deal with NK as an internation equal player.

That's what Kim means when he says * wants them to 'kneel'. After centuries of domination by the Chinese and the Japanese, they want to be seen on equal footing, which * is refusing to do.

[Igel]

19. The NK take on what * wants.

Don't take it literally; it's a translation issue.

To kneel is to forsake one's honor and dignity. The NK press declares nuclear weapons to be necessary to honor and dignity; saying anything bad about them strips them of honor and dignity; forbidding them from counterfeiting US currency strips them of honor and dignity.

Not my definition of 'honor' or 'dignity'; but then again, I'm not pursuing counterfeiting or the oppression of millions. Consider it a small dead zone in the sea of multiculturalism and cultural relativism.

[havocmom]

16. Anybody able to audit bank accounts of powerful men in NK?

Any deposits matching withdrawals from GOP PACs?

[TexasLawyer]

17. Nukes

The US doesn't attack countries with nukes. That's why everyone's so keen on getting them and showing them off right now.

[maxsolomon]

22. you forgot one of 2 things

this: :sarcasm:

or this:

[Deja Q]

29. Show that picture to NK officials and wake them up.

They're doing far, far more threatening than Bush ever will. And NK's attitude clearly shows they're going to use anything they can make.

[hogwyld]

40. but while NK is talking

Our current Fuhrer is actually attacking. You know the saying, actions speak louder than words. Our current dictator is a lot more of a threat to world peace than Kim ever will be. I haven't seen NK invade any countries lately, but I could be wrong.

[geek tragedy]

26. An attack on North Korea was off the table anyways.

They could kill millions of South Koreans with their artillery--firing conventional and chemical munitions.

[kimmerspixelated]

31. Good Point!

[Squatch]

24. These people are batshit crazy.

[killbotfactory]

33. Bush is trying to out-crazy them.

[Pavulon]

34. Inebitab.Inabatable, what

Inevitable! Things are inevitably going to change! Goddamnit, open your fuckin' ears!

[judaspriestess]

47. Well Faux noose just upgraded N. Korea to "menace"

so they are definately climbing up the terror alert chain.

edit: typo

[The Anti-Neo Con]

52. Nutcases!

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy are salivating & licking their chops even more now. It's not a good thing to provoke a bunch of insane war criminals.