60 Minutes' North Korea piece

In summary, North Korea has:

* Forced labor camps
* Nazi-style concentration camps
* Mass starvation that has killed millions
* Untold numbers of political disidents executed
* A quality of life for "affluent" partisans that seem far worse than what the average Iraqi had before the war
* Nuclear weapons
* Sold weaponry to parties hostile to the US; a shipment of SCUD missles was intercepted while it was en route to Yemen earlier this year
* A family-owned regime that has made war against its neighbors

And for some reason there isn't a big drive to promote regime-change outside of the "liberal" humanitarian organizations. When should we start wondering about our nation's priorities where it is willing to topple a dictator like Saddam Hussein but willing to deal with a dictator like Kim Jong Il?

Oh, Round 2 already?

And in this corner, the challenger, making their first big splash in world news since the U.S. last invaded them; the evil, the sadistic, the fascist : North ""Asian Bomber"" Korea!
And, in this corner, the attacking champion, making their first big splash in the news since George Bush tried to pronounce ""Dvorák""; the wholesome, God-fearing, omnipotent : The United ""Do as we Please"" States of America!

Oh, look, a plane is falling toward the Earth! No, wait, that is just out foreign opinion.

So now that the United Nations has finally figured out North Korea has nuclear weapons, what are they going to do about it?

I think this is a ""second chance"" opportunity for the UN to prove its relevancy. Let''s see them take the point in this crisis! Why is it always necessary to wait for America to show interest?

We got our heads handed to us for attacking Iraq without United Nations approval. If they want a war, lets see a resolution. When the United Nations shows a commitment to use force against North Korea, the United States will have no choice but to cooperate.

Oh, but wait, we still have Liberia to deal with.

"Lawyeron" wrote:

We got our heads handed to us for attacking Iraq without United Nations approval. If they want a war, lets see a resolution. When the United Nations shows a commitment to use force against North Korea, the United States will have no choice but to cooperate.

Careful what you wish for....I don''t believe any of the members of the Security Council have an economic stake in keeping the existing North Korean regime in place (with the possible exception of the Chinese).

Then again, we are talking about the U.N., and I''m sure Kim will be sure to borrow a few pages from the Hussein Playbook so as to delay the issue for a decade or so.

Careful what you wish for....I don''t believe any of the members of the Security Council have an economic stake in keeping the existing North Korean regime in place (with the possible exception of the Chinese).

That''s an awful big exception... China will never allow a resolution authorizing force against N. Korea. Russia and France probably wouldn''t oppose it since N. Korea doesn''t owe them billions of dollars and provide huge oil and weapons contracts like Saddam Hussein did...

The other difference is that Saddam fought a war against us, was an avowed enemy of the US, and violated both the terms of his cease-fire and every UN resolution ever passed which pertained to him... Of course that doesn''t matter to the hate-Bush crowd.

Believe it or not, Iraq was a unique case and always presented that way by the administration. US officials have never claimed that military actions are preferable or inevitable, just that they may be sometimes unavoidable, and that we will not hesitate to act pre-emptively when they are.

And for some reason there isn''t a big drive to promote regime-change outside of the ""liberal"" humanitarian organizations. When should we start wondering about our nation''s priorities where it is willing to topple a dictator like Saddam Hussein but willing to deal with a dictator like Kim Jong Il?

Name one Liberal who thinks we should change the government in North Korea. I think we should.

I think everyone wants the regime in the DPRK to be changed, it''s just the old question again: at what price?

I stand by my assertion that the war in Iraq was intended primarily to create a foothold for a liberty-driven democracy in the Middle East. The Middle East is in dire need of a cultural change, and Iraq provided us with the opportunity to do that because no one would come to his aid, and no one, not even in the Middle East will shed a tear that he is gone.

North Korea is important to deal with, but they can be handled government to government. I don''t see a lot of North Korean terrorists.

I stand by my assertion that the war in Iraq was intended primarily to avoid a mushroom cloud sized smoking gun sign somewhere over the motherland. I now believe that the DPRK was, and is, somewhat more of a liability in that area of interest.

I stand by my assertion that the war in Iraq was intended primarily to avoid a mushroom cloud sized smoking gun sign somewhere over the motherland. I now believe that the DPRK was, and is, somewhat more of a liability in that area of interest.

Not really. As JMJ points out, N. Koreans aren''t raising their sons and daughters to blow themselves up for Allah. They don''t hate America as the Great Satan because we let our women drive and wear pants. They don''t murder Jews as payback for Esau.

Having said that, I still don''t have any problem breaking out the B-2s and letting DPRK have a turn...

Amen, I still think the boomers should be brought in for the kill though, cut the mission time from hours to... about eight minutes, firing from the north pacific.