Two Wars, Two Conflicts, Two Crisis's?

[Spyder32]

Well, isn't this musing. As many of you know, I'm deeply into politics and current events and as of right now, I have to say that I'm kind of surprised. It seem's we are entering a possible two war- two conflict sort of problem (We being America). Yet another world problem on the horizon, one that look's to be even worse than Iraq. This is an article from yahoo.com that pretty much say's it all about one certain situation (the one I'm talking about ):

SEOUL, South Korea - Showing no willingness to ease tensions over its nuclear weapons program, North Korea vowed Wednesday to build an army-based "powerful nation" and defy pressure from the United States.

North Korea said it fears a possible U.S. military attack, but President Bush said he was confident the North's nuclear issue can be resolved through diplomacy.

"This is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown," Bush said Tuesday.

North Korea, in its New Year's Day message, called on its people to unite under "the banner of the army-based policy" and build a "powerful nation" to counter a possible U.S. invasion. The reality is that North Korea is impoverished and dependent on outside food aid, much of it supplied by the United States via the U.N. World Food Program.


"The United States is now becoming all the more frantic in its moves to stifle (North Korea), openly clamoring about a preemptive nuclear attack on it," said the message, carried on the country's foreign news outlet, Korean Central News Agency.


The English-language message did not mention rising international concern over Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, but stressed the importance of uniting around the country's military.


In an apparent effort to take advantage of an upsurge in anti-U.S. sentiment in South Korea, the message urged "all the Koreans in the North and the South and abroad" to join in confronting the United States.

"It can be said that there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United States," it said.

U.S. and South Korean officials say their alliance is strong, though North Korea often has tried to drive a wedge between them.

Some South Koreans worry that the nuclear dispute could trigger armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, the world's last Cold War frontier. More than 2 million troops are massed on both sides of the Korean border, while about 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea.

South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who won a Dec. 19 vote partly because of surging anti-U.S. sentiment among his people, on Tuesday warned against "blindly following U.S. policy."

"The United States should consult fully with South Korea, rather than making a decision unilaterally and then expecting South Korea to follow it," said Roh, who begins a five-year term in February.

Roh supports outgoing President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine" policy of engaging North Korea. They believe dialogue is the only viable way to resolve the North's nuclear issue peacefully.

South Korea sent a senior diplomat to Beijing on Wednesday to try to win Chinese support in persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Lee Tae-sik, South Korea's deputy foreign minister, will meet Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Thursday, South Korean officials said.

U.S. and South Korean deny a rift is developing between the two close allies over the nuclear dispute.

But in the past two days, both Roh and Kim have expressed concern that Washington might impose heavy economic pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions, and this could backfire and harden the North's stance.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker said, "I don't think anybody has suggested at this point imposing sanctions."

Anti-U.S. sentiment was evident on the streets of Seoul on New Year's Eve, when about 22,000 South Koreans gathered near the U.S. Embassy to protest the deaths of two teenage girls accidentally killed in June by a U.S. military vehicle.

Two U.S. soldiers whose vehicle killed the girls were cleared of negligent homicide charges in U.S. military courts last month.

Some protesters shouted for an end to the U.S. military presence in South Korea.

Tensions over North Korea's nuclear ambitions intensified Tuesday when Pyongyang expelled two U.N. inspectors monitoring its nuclear facilities and signaled it might pull out of the global nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

North Korea's ambassador to Moscow, Pak Ui Chun, told Russian news media Tuesday that his country intends to free itself from its last legal obligations under the international nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which seeks to confine nuclear weapons to the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China.

In recent weeks, North Korea removed monitoring seals and cameras from nuclear facilities at Yongbyon that were frozen under a 1994 deal with the United States. It says it is willing to resolve concerns over its nuclear program if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty, but Washington rules out any talks before the North changes course.

Hrm, it seem's to me that yet another conflict for the U.S is coming up. These conflicts really start rising questions, the famous one being "Are we leading to WW3?". This is the obvious one, and although no answer is imminent, the chances get bigger each day. From what it look's to me, North Korea doesn't want the weapon's inspectors and want's to "stand up to the U.S" and "confront" them. This is already causing problems, and the irony of alot of it is the fact that Bush want's to go with a diplomatic solution. Now, is he scared of N.Korea? Possibly, and it seem's to me the case. Does he want two conflicts or two wars? No (then again, who the hell know's what he wants). It's odd though, he think's the U.S can fight two wars at the same time. Now, you've all just heard my opinion, what's your's on this ever-growing conflict?....

[Tedob1]

you can add this to your list:

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- The North Korean army has brought light machine guns into the Demilitarized Zone, the United Nations Command on the Korean Peninsula said Friday -- a violation of agreements signed in 1953 at the end of the Korean War.


http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapc...27/nkorea.dmz/

[roswell1329]

This is indeed an interesting wrinkle in world affairs. Although the threat of military conflict is creating some tension, I think the political struggle is much more interesting. The Bush Administration has a tough road ahead of them. Throughout the last 2 years, the Bush Administration has spent much of it's time developing an image of "tough foreign policy". Bush has been waging a war on terrorism, petitioning for tough economic and military sanctions against Iraq, and creating brazen agitprop like the "Axis of Evil" statement, reminiscent of the 1940s era propaganda wars. Now, as if predicted by every History textbook, we see once again that confrontation begets confrontation. Iraq has stood fast in opposition to the United States, and it has delayed compliance to every demand by the UN until the last possible moment. And now North Korea is taking the same stance of opposition. They have stated that they will prepare an "army-based policy" and a "powerful nation" in response to a possible US invasion. Our "zero tolerance" foreign policies are becoming more and more difficult to maintain. How will Bush appear "tough" in response to this latest North Korean move, and not appear biased toward Iraq? He has obviously demonstrated his willingness to use military force against Iraq, yet I don't see too many troops moving back into the Pusan Perimeter. I would be surprised if Bush took the same stance against North Korea that he has with Iraq, but if he doesn't his policies will appear skewed against Iraq. Whatever the outcome, I will be watching.

From a National Security standpoint, I'd like to offer some information I have learned about the US military through my studies in political science. The United States policy for a standing military has been in the past to always be prepared for a possible "3-front war". I don't know what the current state of our military is, but I would be willing to bet that a "2-front war" could be managed successfully. That being said, it is very possible that the US has plans to confront North Korea on their recent actions and to be prepared to back up that resolve with military might. I truly hope this is not the case. It's ironic to watch the US -- a formerly predominantly isolationist state -- become a bit of a world bully. I am very much of the school of thought that our national creedo should not be "resistence is futile".

Here's another little conspiracy theory to play with. Could these international tussles merely be engineered distractions designed to keep our attentions off the homefront? It has been suggested by some that Clinton effectively used the "convenient crisis" time and again to redirect the spotlight on his personal affairs. I would never suggest the notion that Bush is taking a page from the Clinton-Distraction handbook, but there seems to be a great need for domestic attention that has been falling on deaf ears up to now. I make no accusations...I'm simply planting seeds.

I'm hoping things don't start to really heat up on either of these two fronts. It is my contention that we are really starting to play with fire. Both of these regions are highly volatile, and there is a potential for a spillover into neighboring countries if any resulting conflict isn't orchestrated carefully and swiftly, especially into Iran, the final pivot on the "Axis of Evil," or even Israel. I understand the US need to feel secure, but we seem to be sacrificing many of the principles we live by to achieve that. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

[t2k2]

I find this situation very disturbing. I think to fight two wars at the same time would be very stupid, especially in this situation. I mean, you have Iraq on one side - who knows what kinds of weapons they are in possession of whether it be nukes or Scuds. And while they may not be able to attack us at home, they could still cause significant damage to neighboring countries, be they friendly to the US or not. On the other hand, you have North Korea, who we pretty much know for sure at least has the capability to build nuclear weapons. Just think of the implications, and it's enough to make you cringe. While we may be physically able to fight both wars, wouldn't this leave us just a bit "open" for another attack by terrorists? I don't know, but it could get ugly. I truly hope that diplomacy prevails in both of these situations, but I have a feeling that I could be being a little too optimistic here. As far as the issues being distractions, I wouldn't put it past Bush. However, from what issues do you think Bush could be trying to divert attention? I am just curious.

[roswell1329]

I think the domestic issues that are the most damaging right now to the Bush administration are the economy and health care. Both are greatly in need of attention.

Here's another thing to ponder. North Korea is being controlled by a communist party. It would stand to reason that the party is very interested in staying in power. How would the world react if it was found that North Korea launched or used a nuclear weapon? North Korea would probably end up as an annex of the UN, and any remaining party members after the dust settled would be under arrest for crimes against humanity.

Unfortunately, this is where I become conflicted. In law enforcement, individuals cannot be punished, prosecuted or even detained for crimes they have not yet committed. I would love to apply this to foreign policy, but can we really afford to wait until a nuclear, chemical, or biological bomb is detonated before we intervene? Would we be negligent in our moral responsibilities if we allowed a country to use weapons of mass destruction since we had the power to force them to disarm, or would we be over-stepping our bounds with such an invasion of sovereignty (like in Iraq)? For some reason, the normal protocols of law don't seem to fit with foreign policy.

[The Old Man]

A tough call indeed for the Administration, on several fronts. It would be difficult to remember any past president who had so many conflicting problems in such far-flung places including his own back yard requiring attention and action at the same time.
The other day i was listening to a discussion at the next table (old work habits are hard to discard) where the guys were discussing the Korean situation. One said the north already had a handfull of 'nukes but no decent delivery system. Another asked if the north didn't have an old rusty ship that could be sailed into SFO harbor and would not that be a delivery system. The last one said he watched the anti-American display at a USA base in So. Korea, and he thought it would be a good idea to bring in an overwhelming perimiter guard to hold sack while the base dismantled everything including the latrines and either sent it home or burned it, then the troops stationed at the base all exit under the protection of the perimiter guard, then the perimiter guard exit under the protection of overwhelming air cover, and leave the koreans one large empty piece of land that used to be their private milk-cow.
Don't know if any of them knew what they were talking about, but that's what they were saying.
Just glad it isn't me, and sure glad it isn't some others we've heard, who have to make the hard decisions that are being made at 1600 Penna Ave these days...... Maybe Tedob1's plot is a lot closer than we think. Hurry up, Ted, or you'll be writing about ancient history!

[ebo]

I think that North Korea is a country that is trying to take a stab at the U.S military and see where they stand. Bush was right, this shouldn't be a problem that will need to be solved with military actions. It should be talked over. Sometimes militant people who are craving for power or trouble do not think. If most of their food supply is coming from the U.S, why would they want to start all this? How can you unite your people if they are sturving? If the people of that land do not realize that there is something wrong with this, then they must be as blind as their leader is. -Ebo

[Spyder32]

Gotta agree, and the problem with alot of this is the mere fact that North Korea isn't scared of the U.S and want's them to stop their overseas policy with Iraq and other countries. North Korea is trying to send a message saying, "We're not scared and we'll fight you". They are basically calling the U.S out, and I doubt we want a war with N. Korea.

Here's another thing to ponder. North Korea is being controlled by a communist party. It would stand to reason that the party is very interested in staying in power. How would the world react if it was found that North Korea launched or used a nuclear weapon? North Korea would probably end up as an annex of the UN, and any remaining party members after the dust settled would be under arrest for crimes against humanity.

Agreed, the world is already reacting to them taking out the inspectors, who know's what will happen if they use the nukes.

It's ironic to watch the US -- a formerly predominantly isolationist state -- become a bit of a world bully. I am very much of the school of thought that our national creedo should not be "resistence is futile".

Your on a roll slick . For some time now (or atleast since 9/11) the U.S government has been nothing but a world bully IMO. I hate the fact that our government like's everyone else's buisness in the world and settling their matters, when here in America we have homeless people and the average person that need's help. What the hell happened to taking care of your own country? Again, thanks for the replies, I wish to hear more opinions.

[El Diablo]

Korea has been posturing for years with the nuclear rhetoric. I don't think we are going to have a "war" with them, but most likely a serious diplomatic issue. I also hope we don't continue on this head long course of a war with Iraq, but that is one that I don't see us avoiding in all actuality.

As far as us not "wanting" a war with Korea, well this time they won't have China to back them up as I'm sure China doesn't want to get involved with another land war with us. I'm sure they don't want a war with us either... this just looks like posturing to me, and I think they are doing it because they think we are distracted by Iraq.

The US has been a "bully" for a much longer time than since the 9/11 incident. We have been much too involved with other countries affairs for a long time now. Remember Solmalia, Bosnia, Iraq (part I), Grenada, etc. We have been the worlds "policeman" for a number of years and I have thought we should have been out of it the whole time. We have too many things going on in our own back yard to worry about what is going on at the neighbors.

anyway, I hope we don't have a war with anyone as that just means I'll most likely get called back up and I'm getting too old for that



El Diablo

[Spyder32]

To the stupid-ass with the dumb comment of

Im really fed up hearing about politics on this forum, this is actually a security forum NOT a politics forum, so if you want to discuss politics so much then why not run as a politician or something

A security forum? First, learn how to read. This forum is for philosophical and political posts, not security one's. How dumb can you be? Read the forum description. Oh well, a neg is a neg, but the reason was awfully dumb.