Page 1 of 1

NK launches rocket: Obama calls Kim Jong Il a \"Bad Man

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:36 pm
by Nightshade
NKorean rocket appears to fizzle, prompts outcry

By PAUL ALEXANDER, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – The rocket launched by nuclear-armed North Korea on Sunday appears to have fizzled in the Pacific Ocean, but positioned a defiant Kim Jong Il to make demands from an international community worried that it indicates the capacity to fire a long-range missile.

President Barack Obama and other national leaders immediately criticized the Korean leader for threatening peace and stability of nations \"near and far.\" The U.N. Security Council approved an emergency session for Sunday afternoon in New York, following a request from Japan just minutes after liftoff.

\"North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long-range missiles,\" Obama said in Prague. \"It creates instability in their region, around the world. This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon in the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.\"

Pyongyang claims it launched an experimental communications satellite into orbit Sunday and that it's transmitting data and patriotic songs. U.S. and South Korean officials claim the entire rocket, including whatever payload it was carrying, ended up in the ocean.

But it doesn't really matter how successful the rocket launch was. Kim's critics claim he really was testing a ballistic missile capable of hitting U.S. territory.

While the rogue communist state has repeatedly been belligerent and threatening — as it was when it carried out an underground nuclear blast and tested ballistic missiles in recent years — Pyongyang showed increased savvy this time that may make severe punishment more complicated than ever.

Unlike its previous provocations, the North notified the international community that the launch was coming and the route the rocket would take. Using a possible loophole in sanctions imposed after the 2006 nuclear test that barred the North from ballistic missile activity, the government claimed it was exercising its right to peaceful space development.

Since it will be hard to positively prove otherwise, objections from Russia and China — the North's closest ally — will almost certainly water down any strong response. Both have Security Council veto power.

Iran, which also has a contentious relationship with the international community over its nuclear program and is believed to have cooperated extensively with North Korea on missile technology, defended the launch.

\"North Korea, like any other country, has the right to enter space,\" Iran's state TV said in a commentary, adding that the \"pressure on North Korea to give up its undisputable right\" was \"unfair and dishonest.\"

Analysts say sanctions imposed after the North's underground nuclear test in 2006 appear to have had little effect because implementation was left up to individual countries, some of which showed no will to impose them.

Kim is reportedly a big film buff, and his strategy appears to have borrowed heavily from the 1959 movie \"The Mouse That Roared,\" about a fictional poor country that declares war on the U.S., expecting to lose and get aid like the Marshall Plan that Washington used to help rebuild its World War II foes.

In Kim's case, negotiation has always been about brinksmanship — develop nuclear weapons and tell everybody you're ready to use them. Rather than risk confrontation, world leaders have offered aid and concessions, figuring that such costs are better than finding out if the mouse really can roar.

Despite its policy of \"juche,\" or \"self-reliance,\" communist North Korea is one of the world's poorest countries, has few allies and is in desperate need of outside help. The money that flowed in unconditionally from neighboring South Korea for a decade dried up when conservative President Lee Myung-bak took office in 2008.

Pyongyang has little collateral, and for years has used its nuclear weapons program as its trump card, promising to abandon its atomic ambitions in exchange for aid and then dangling the nuclear threat when it doesn't get its way.

It's been an effective strategy so far, with previous missile launches drawing Washington to negotiations. The North also has reportedly been selling missile parts and technology to whoever has the cash to pay for it.

So what does Kim want? The list is long: food for his famished people, fuel and — perhaps most importantly — direct talks and relations with Washington.

Right now, the main contact is through six-nation talks aimed at getting Pyongyang to give up its worrisome nuclear weapons program. But that means dealing with two neighbors that the North despises most, Japan and South Korea.

It probably isn't a coincidence that the rocket was fired over Japan. North Korea had warned that debris might fall off Japan's northern coast when the rocket's first stage fell away, so Tokyo positioned batteries of interceptor missiles on its coast and radar-equipped ships off its northern seas to monitor the launch. Nary a shot was necessary.

Obama warned the launch would further isolate the reclusive nation. But pragmatism calls for engagement, especially with efforts to get North Korea back to the negotiating table for the six-party talks.

\"We must deal with North Korea as we find it, not as we would like it to be,\" Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. envoy on North Korea, said Friday. \"I've long since suppressed my tendency toward frustration. What is required is patience and perseverance.\"

Kim Keun-sik, a North Korea expert at South Korea's Kyungnam University, said the launch would chill ties between Pyongyang and Washington, but likely not for long.

\"Wouldn't they eventually come to hold talks? There is no other way,\" Kim said.

U.S. officials also are trying to obtain the release of two American journalists recently detained by the North along its border with China. Paik Hak-soon, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank, predicted they would be used as bargaining chips, with the North likely \"to try to link them to the nuclear and missile talks.\"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_nkorea_missile

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:14 pm
by SilverFJ
Why don't we just wipe these guys off the map???? :(

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:32 pm
by Spidey
Sounds like they want more food or money or both.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:07 pm
by Duper
basically. we went through this, what ... last year when Russia cut their oil supply off?

Re:

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:15 pm
by woodchip
SilverFJ wrote:Why don't we just wipe these guys off the map???? :(
Because NK has something like 10,000 artillery tubes along the DMZ, pointed at Seoul and ready to fire at the first attack. A crude but credible deterrent.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:07 pm
by SilverFJ
Of all the world leaders to get nukes, man, what a thorn in everyone's side...

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:51 pm
by Will Robinson
Well one positive side is Kim dipstick Ill has shown he wants to leverage his supposed missile threat for aid and recognition and his conventional arsenal pointed at South Korea shows he thinks in terms of mutual destruction as a deterrent. He has no ability to wage war outside his immediate area, no infrastructure to sustain an army on the move. He can't really fight a war he can only fire his load once and then he's toast.

So even if he gets some serious nuke capability he's not necessarily likely to launch them.
At least not as likely as a country like Iran who exports suicide bombers and celebrates martyrdom.

I think a CIA supported coup following an assassination is just what the doctor ordered for this situation. And if we only slightly deny it so much the better.

Re:

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:49 pm
by Dakatsu
woodchip wrote:
SilverFJ wrote:Why don't we just wipe these guys off the map???? :(
Because NK has something like 10,000 artillery tubes along the DMZ, pointed at Seoul and ready to fire at the first attack. A crude but credible deterrent.
That and the fact that their army is almost as big as ours, also with probable backing from China. It wouldn't be like Iraq, where we could go in and wipe out their army - it would take lots of time and effort, and lots of casualties. Admittedly we would be backed up by South Korea (and Japan would probably help as a staging ground like in the Korean War), but it would be an actual war.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:39 am
by AlphaDoG
Aren't all wars \"actual\" wars?

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:35 am
by woodchip
Will Robinson wrote:
I think a CIA supported coup following an assassination is just what the doctor ordered for this situation. And if we only slightly deny it so much the better.
Isn't "assassination" a form of torture? Alfred E. has told the world we do not torture so don't look for any spinal fortitude by our Glorious Leader to end the threat. I would say we should just start shooting Kims missiles down and see how he likes reverse provocation.

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:57 am
by Pandora
woodchip wrote: Alfred E. has told the world we do not torture so don't look for any spinal fortitude by our Glorious Leader to end the threat.
torture = spinal fortitude???

:roll: :roll:

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:23 am
by Will Robinson
Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote: Alfred E. has told the world we do not torture so don't look for any spinal fortitude by our Glorious Leader to end the threat.
torture = spinal fortitude???

:roll: :roll:
As weird as it may sound to some of you the cold hard reality of life in N. Korea, where if you aren't in the army or a productive useful tool in the governments machine you find yourself eating tree bark to try and survive, if we were to kill Kim slapnutIll and help empower some semi-rational replacement we would be reducing the ratio of torture in N.Korea by a few million to one.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:52 am
by Pandora
yeah, but that wasn't my point. I was wondering since when not using torture indicates a lack of spine.

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:54 am
by woodchip
Pandora wrote:
woodchip wrote: Alfred E. has told the world we do not torture so don't look for any spinal fortitude by our Glorious Leader to end the threat.
torture = spinal fortitude???

:roll: :roll:
Why the roll eyes Pandora? By not accepting even the most benign forms of information gathering, Obama has declared to the world, "Your secrets are safe from us".
Who care if the peasant North Korean is reduced to cannibalizing dead fellow countrymen just to stay alive. Who cares if some captured Iranian knows when and where a nuclear device may go off killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Obama says we will not torture but how clean will Obama The Just looks when it comes to light he was the cause of all those people dying because he refused any form of mis-treatment of the knowledge holder because it was morally wrong?
Just where do you draw the line Pandora, when the choice is one man or a hundred thousand dead? I'd like to know.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:09 am
by CUDA
Mr. Spock wrote:The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:46 am
by Pandora
Pandora wrote:By not accepting even the most benign forms of information gathering, Obama has declared to the world, "Your secrets are safe from us".
did he really? Read that or that. Any terrorist who believes he's safe from torture will be in for a nasty surprise.
Who care if the peasant North Korean is reduced to cannibalizing dead fellow countrymen just to stay alive. Who cares if some captured Iranian knows when and where a nuclear device may go off killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Obama says we will not torture but how clean will Obama The Just looks when it comes to light he was the cause of all those people dying because he refused any form of mis-treatment of the knowledge holder because it was morally wrong?
Just where do you draw the line Pandora, when the choice is one man or a hundred thousand dead? I'd like to know.
Hyperbole. In other contexts you don't seem to follow the precautionary principle (i.e. global warming), but here you're strongly arguing for it. Even though the evidence for global warming is much stronger than the evidence that torture works. I guess what makes the difference is that in one case the evil muslims or korean dictators suffer, and in the other it is yourself. That's not spinal fortitude.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:24 am
by woodchip
Pandora, thanks for the links. To bad the main stream Obama protectors don't tout what those links imply as I'm sure there would be some backlash against Obama. On second thought perhaps it is best the main stream says nothing.

As to your second thought about the efficacy of torture, I guess it is all a matter of interpretation:

\"Mr Thiessen has written in to let us know that he certainly does not consider \"enhanced interrogation\" or the treatment of Abu Zubaydah torture, and we should not have implied as much. ABC News has reported that Mr Zubaydah was \"slapped, grabbed, made to stand long hours in a cold cell, and finally handcuffed and strapped feet up to a water board until after 0.31 seconds [sic] he begged for mercy and began to cooperate\". (Mr Kiriakou says it took about 35 seconds.) So, for the record, we want to clarify that Mr Thiessen should not be attributed with the argument that torture is effective because he does not believe that these techniques are torture. The Economist disagrees on that last point.\"

Re:

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:24 pm
by Dakatsu
AlphaDoG wrote:Aren't all wars "actual" wars?
I mean't not just a small skirmish, it would be a very long and costly war, on the scale or larger than Vietnam.

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:40 pm
by SilverFJ
Maybe consider an actual war against a difinitive body, right now we're in such a \"who's what where\" twist. Hard to tell a terrorist enemy from one wearing a uniform.