North Korea tests nukes... - DPChallenge Forums

10/12/2006 06:25:48 AM · #51

Originally posted by srdanz:

By now we must have learned that it is not the toppling of the regime that is the problem - it is finding a suitable replacement that is tough.

...What kind of situation do we hope to produce by refusing to talk? Ido not understand...

I completely agree.

10/12/2006 08:18:53 AM · #52

Legal, yes I have heard those quotes from GWB. Do not see what was wrongs about what was said by GWB. You can break those statements down or not and see they are factual. You probably will not agree with that statement, but I will let you decide that. But you I am guessing since your an attorney would have a background in Political Science. Would have read "The Prince" and realized you are limited to dealing with governments of such as North Korea and etc by forceful removal. Well anyway I feel everyone has the feeling that its bad for them to have Nukes. Just the method of dealing with them is in question. I do think the best answer lies in China taking the bull by the horns. We wil see only the future will tell.

10/12/2006 08:51:11 AM · #53

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by yanko:
Sanctions will hurt the people of North Korea not the regime. But you're right the regime needs to collapse. I just don't think this will do it. Far from it. To weaken an already weak population with sanctions isn't going expedite a revolution, IMO.

I have to disagree. The only sanctions that would accomplish regime change are the ones that would send the people of N Korea from a dire situation into a fatal one. At that point they would either revolt or Dear Leader would be leading a nation of corpses. No one will implement these sanctions. Not even the (constantly bashed, heartless empire of capitalism) US is proposing such.

Sounds like you agree with me.

Well, depends on you really heheh. You said you don't think sanctions will be a catalyst for regime change. I do, I just don't think anyone is willing to implement sanctions harsh enough to accomplish that end.

Ultimately this is just going to turn into more years of appeasement wrapped in the guise of 'tough diplomacy'. China speaks out of the diplomatic side of its mouth and condemns N Korea while China has millitary personnel on hand to observe/advise N Korea's last test missle launch (I am too lazy to go find url, do your own research). China has nothing to lose by N Korea doing as it will as it is a thorn in the US' side as well as a problem for S Korea and Japan, local rivals.

The Iraq War has become such a PR nightmare that it is unlikely that millitary action will be taken. So, the world will sit on its heels and hope that everything 'just works out'. I don't see it going any other way. Every diplomatic agreement reached with DPRK has been broken by Dear Leader & Friends. More of the same is what the future holds.

10/12/2006 08:55:06 AM · #54

Originally posted by coronamv:

My point was that the oversimplification of issues, them and us, labelling disparate groups with the same label, and generalisations, get in the way of serious diplomacy. I am not sure why you felt the need to challenge me on whether or not those statements had been made.

I am not sure that the statements do represent the "facts", at least not clearly: I think that the use of generalisations, labelling and polemic distillation contribute to the distortion of the facts. However, they do reduce a complicated issue down to easily communicated sound bites to make a persuasive political argument that is portrayed as "common sense" - ideal for gaining the support of the unsophisticated voter.

10/12/2006 09:45:26 AM · #55

Why do you insist on calling them "Desparate"? Radical or Fanatical would be more fitting. See to me its a difference in ideaology. You see them as a group in need of some sort of help. I see them as a group of trouble makers. Generalizations? You feel The US and GWB is lumping all the terroist into one Titled group. Well fact is the terroist do the actions in the name of Islam. Their views are shapped with strick fundamentals and their actions are terroism. So when GWB says the Islamic Fundamental terroist. We all know exactly who he is speaking of. I dont believe you will find a quote where Islam is being blamed by Our government. I personally dont believe Islam is the problem. As for North Korea. Well thats more of a tricky situation. We do have a defined enemy. The government of N.K. Their leader is out of control. The whole world is condeming the actions of N.K. So what to do bow down or stand up and fight. For the last statement about Your either with us or against us. Well thats the way life is. Either, OR you cannot have it both ways.

10/12/2006 11:35:06 AM · #56

Originally posted by coronamv:

Why do you insist on calling them "Desparate"?

I said "disparate" - it shares no meaning with "desperate" (or "desparate" [sic]). It means "Composed of or including markedly dissimilar elements. "

Originally posted by coronamv:

Generalizations? You feel The US and GWB is lumping all the terroist into one Titled group. Well fact is the terroist do the actions in the name of Islam. Their views are shapped with strick fundamentals and their actions are terroism. So when GWB says the Islamic Fundamental terroist.

But to lump together Hezbollah with Hamas with Al Queda with the Taliban (and for good measure, probably the Iranian government and even the North Korean government) in the "war on terror" is to lump together a number of groups that have very different ethos, power, purpose, methodologies, degrees of legitimacy etc etc etc. Apart from North Korea, all they have in common is the fact that they are Muslim.

Given that the group is *disparate*, there is hardly likely to be just one solution to the various problems - so why does GWB lump them together like that?

Originally posted by coronamv:

As for North Korea. Well thats more of a tricky situation. We do have a defined enemy. The government of N.K. Their leader is out of control. The whole world is condeming the actions of N.K. So what to do bow down or stand up and fight.

Most of the world is condemning NK's actions - but no-one in power is seriously suggesting that we surrender to them, or that we invade their country.

Their leader is not "out of control" - he is merely demonstrating that he is not under the control of the West. He may find out quite quickly that NK is not very independent, especially when China starts reigning him in.

Saying he is "out of control", "must be stopped", "an immediate threat" is alarmist.

Originally posted by coronamv:

For the last statement about Your either with us or against us. Well thats the way life is. Either, OR you cannot have it both ways.

How about me? I support the US invasion of Afghanistan, but I bitterly oppose the war in Iraq. Am I with, or against the US?

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

10/12/2006 04:59:11 PM · #57

Originally posted by coronamv:

O Yes many people died. Yes it is horrible. Yes it was nessaccery. Just like kadolfi and reagon drop bombs on the mans palace kill his family and let them know your gunning for them and they will run scared. You may not agree with these tactics but they work. Its when you give in to terror that you lose.

I'm sorry, but i can't see how the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens could ever be necessary or justified.

10/12/2006 05:08:12 PM · #58

Originally posted by Mo:

I'm sorry, but i can't see how the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens could ever be necessary or justified.

Of course it becomes harder to rationalize when you move further and further from the point in time when they were actively killing tens of thousands of your fellow citizens.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

10/12/2006 05:24:53 PM · #59

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Mo:
I'm sorry, but i can't see how the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens could ever be necessary or justified.

Of course it becomes harder to rationalize when you move further and further from the point in time when they were actively killing tens of thousands of your fellow citizens.

They? these citizens? They killed our citizens? We need to seperate government and army from citizens. We are out killing thousands of innocent people in iraq. we killed hungreds of thousands of innocent people in japan. maybe it stopped the war, but by saying that it was a good thing to do is implying that our lives are more important than theirs.

10/12/2006 05:33:41 PM · #60

Ok legal I see where your coming from, but I feel like you are the one generalizing what GWB said. Yes he does refer to Hezbola(forgive the spelling) Hamas and Alkaida plus the taliban as Islamic Fundament terroism. In reference to the actions each have comitted. Which most would agree fits the profile. North Korea gets lumped into the Axis of Evil not due to being Muslim but for sharing a similar ideology with The for mentioned groups. What is that, well to my eyes it is not about religion or land its about destroying the western way of life.Thing is when they get done destroying this part of the world they will continue until they end up in your back yard. Then I ask how willing will you be to lay down and take it. I feel your intentions may be good, but nothing you suggest will satisfy the Terroist. In the end its Either-Or

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/12/2006 05:45:06 PM · #61

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I agree. Sanctions, like with everything else will be done half ass, hence not going to work.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

10/12/2006 08:18:51 PM · #62

Originally posted by Mo:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Mo:
I'm sorry, but i can't see how the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens could ever be necessary or justified.

Of course it becomes harder to rationalize when you move further and further from the point in time when they were actively killing tens of thousands of your fellow citizens.

They? these citizens? They killed our citizens? We need to seperate government and army from citizens. We are out killing thousands of innocent people in iraq. we killed hungreds of thousands of innocent people in japan. maybe it stopped the war, but by saying that it was a good thing to do is implying that our lives are more important than theirs.

When it comes down to me and someone else - my life is more important than thiers. Extrapolate that up to nation versus nation. The logic still holds.

Don't bring Iraq into it. If you can't discuss the topic, the bombing of Japan, without trying to divert attention then why get involved at all.

Apple iPhone 5

10/12/2006 08:21:34 PM · #63

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Apart from North Korea, all they have in common is the fact that they are Muslim.

The North Koreans could be classified as Buddhist Extremists. Or Buddafascists.

10/13/2006 05:56:48 AM · #64

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Apart from North Korea, all they have in common is the fact that they are Muslim.

The North Koreans could be classified as Buddhist Extremists. Or Buddafascists.

Extreme non-violence.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/13/2006 06:01:57 AM · #65

Originally posted by routerguy666:

When it comes down to me and someone else - my life is more important than thiers. Extrapolate that up to nation versus nation. The logic still holds.

Although sometimes using violence against someone else will leave you in a worse position than if you had reasoned with them. It is not unreasonable to operate on a purely self-interest basis, but sometimes it is in your best interests to use something other than force to get your own way.

It would, for example, be very much cheaper (and result in a lower tax burden for you personally) if the US could resolve its dispute with N Korea diplomatically - not only the cost of the military hardware, but also the cost of lost business that might come with better relations.

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

10/13/2006 09:38:29 AM · #66

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It would, for example, be very much cheaper (and result in a lower tax burden for you personally) if the US could resolve its dispute with N Korea diplomatically - not only the cost of the military hardware, but also the cost of lost business that might come with better relations.

The problem is they want to do so with one-on-one talks which will not work, it didn't work during the Clinton administration and again earlier in the Bush administration. Six party talks diplomatically is the best for this situation IMO. If we go in one-on-one with N. Korea they will take money and continue to do what they have for years and when the problem builds up again in the future (on a larger scale) the blame will be placed on the US.

10/13/2006 09:53:22 AM · #67

Reagan Said it best "we will not give in to terrorist or their demands." You lose when you attempt deal with them. Of course this is where we differ. I believe and so does the government of The United States and a larger part of the Global economic Countries that the NK Regime (government for the PC people) act in a classic style like terrorist. So talking only delays the inebitable.

10/13/2006 12:06:46 PM · #68

Originally posted by coronamv:

I think that statement was probably made in the context of Libya - a country behind a lot of the 80s terrorism affecting the US, and which the US now embraces following reforms driven by sanctions, diplomacy and only very minor military involvement.

10/13/2006 02:30:16 PM · #69

Ok my response...

Nov 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran

Fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage when militant students of radical Islam stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.[1] Shortly thereafter, U.S. President Jimmy Carter ordered a complete embargo of Iranian oil; stronger economic embargoes followed. On April 8, 1980, Carter severed diplomatic relations with Iran after negotiations for the hostages' release failed.

Later that month, Carter authorized a top-secret mission, named Operation Eagle Claw, to free the hostages. Helicopters were to carry Delta Force commandos from a carrier in the Persian Gulf to a point outside Tehran, where they were to spend the night and begin the rescue the next morning. The complicated mission, which involved refueling the helicopters at a spot in the Iranian desert labeled "Desert One," was aborted April 25 after three of the eight helicopters suffered mechanical failure. Eight U.S. servicemen were killed when one of the helicopters collided with a refueling plane.

The hostages were finally released just hours after Ronald Reagan's presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. They had spent 444 days in captivity.

May 1981 Threats from Libya

When intelligence reports surfaced that Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi had plans to assassinate American diplomats in Rome and Paris, President Reagan expelled all Libyan diplomats from the U.S. (May 6, 1981) and closed Libya's diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C. Three months later, Reagan ordered U.S. Navy jets to shoot down Libyan fighters if they ventured inside what was known as the "line of death." (This was the line created by Qaddafi to demarcate Libya's territorial waters, which he said extended more than 100 miles off the country's shoreline; the U.S. and other maritime nations recognized Libyan territorial waters as extending only 12 miles from shore.) As expected, the Libyan Air Force counter-attacked and Navy jets shot down two SU-22 warplanes about 60 miles off the Libyan coast.

Some alleged that the U.S. exaggerated the terrorist threat from Libya, in part because Libya was an easy target. The small country -- Libya is about one-fifth the physical size of the U.S., and its entire population at that time was only 3 million or so -- was and still is considered a minor player in the Middle East with no steadfast allies. U.S. officials denied Libya was used as a scapegoat, maintaining that it posed a credible terrorist threat against U.S. targets and that Libya had sufficient oil funds to mount a significant attack on U.S. interests.

April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut

A suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas.

Reagan administration officials said that the attack was carried out by Hezbollah operatives, a Lebanese militant Islamic group whose anti-U.S. sentiments were sparked in part by the revolution in Iran. The Hezbollah operatives who carried out the attack on the embassy reportedly were receiving financial and logistical support from both Iran and Syria. [For more on how and why Iran and Syria were helping to direct attacks on the U.S., see FRONTLINE's interviews with Robert Oakley and Robert C. McFarlane.]

The U.S. government took no military action in response to the embassy bombing, although, according to retired Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, a covert military team entered Beirut in order to gather intelligence in preparation for retaliatory strikes.

Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut

A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at Beirut International Airport; 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded. They were part of a contingent of 1,800 Marines that had been sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to help separate the warring Lebanese factions. (Twice during the early 1980s the U.S. had deployed troops to Lebanon to deal with the fall-out from the 1982 Israeli invasion. In the first deployment, Marines helped oversee the peaceful withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. In mid-September 1982 -- after the U.S. troops had left -- Israel's Lebanese allies massacred an estimated 800 unarmed Palestinian civilians remaining in refugee camps. Following this, 1,800 Marines had been ordered back into Lebanon.)

In his September 2001 FRONTLINE interview, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said the U.S. still lacks "actual knowledge of who did the bombing" of the Marine barracks. But it suspected Hezbollah, believed to be supported in part by Iran and Syria. Hezbollah denied its involvement.

The president assembled his national security team to devise a plan of military action. The planned target was the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations. Instead, President Reagan ordered the battleship USS New Jersey, stationed off the coast of Lebanon, to the hills near Beirut. The move was seen as largely ineffective.

Four months after the Marine barracks bombing, U.S. Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon.

Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait

The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks whose targets also included the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country's main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon. Six people were killed, including a suicide truck bomber, and more than 80 others were injured. The suspects were thought to be members of Al Dawa, or "The Call," an Iranian-backed group and one of the principal Shiite groups operating against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The U.S. military took no action in retaliation. In Kuwait, 17 people were arrested and convicted for participating in the attacks. One of those convicted was Mustafa Youssef Badreddin, a cousin and brother-in-law of one of Hezbollah's senior officers, Imad Mughniyah. After a six-week trial in Kuwait, Badreddin was sentenced to death for his role in the bombings.

Over the following years, the arrest and imprisonment of the "Kuwait 17" (also known as the "Al Dawa 17"), became one of the most consistent demands of the kidnappers of Western hostages in Lebanon and plane hijackers.

Ironically, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Iraqis unwittingly released the imprisoned Badreddin and the remaining members of the Kuwait 17. Press reports vary about Badreddin's current whereabouts.

March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped

Buckley was the fourth person to be kidnapped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. The first American hostage, American University of Beirut President David Dodge, had been kidnapped in July 1982. Eventually, 30 Westerners would be kidnapped during the 10-year-long Lebanese hostage-taking crisis (1982-1992).

Americans who were kidnapped included journalist Terry Anderson, American University of Beirut librarian Peter Kilburn, and Benjamin Weir, a Presbyterian minister. While some of the prisoners lived through captivity -- Anderson spent the longest time as a hostage, 2,454 days -- some, including Buckley, died in captivity or were killed by their kidnappers.

U.S. officials believed that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah was behind most of the kidnappings and the Reagan administration devised a covert plan. Iran was desperately running out of military supplies in its war with Iraq, but Congress had banned the sale of American arms to countries like Iran that sponsored terrorism. Reagan was advised that a bargain could be struck -- secret arms sales to Iran, hostages back to the U.S. The plan, when it was revealed to the public, was decried as a failure and anathema to the U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

In August 1985, the first consignment of arms to Iran was sent -- 100 anti-tank missiles provided by Israel; another 408 were sent the following month. As a result of the deal, American hostage Benjamin Weir was released from captivity; he had been imprisoned for 495 days. Only two other hostages were released as a result of the arms-for-hostages deal: in July 1986, Martin Jenco, a Catholic priest, was released; and the administrator of the American University of Beirut's medical school, David Jacobson, was released in November 1986.

Since the funds from the arms sales to Iran were secretly, and illegally, funneled to the U.S.-backed Contras fighting to overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, the infamous episode became known as the "Iran-Contra affair." (See the "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters.)

Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut

In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. According to the U.S. State Department's 1999 report on terrorist organizations, elements of Hezbollah are "known or suspected to have been involved" in the bombing.

The U.S. mounted no military response to the embassy annex bombing, but it did begin to explore covert operations in Lebanon. Investigative journalist Bob Woodward says that the CIA trained foreign intelligence agents to act as "hit teams" designed to destroy the terrorists' operations. Ambassador Robert Oakley says the U.S. merely attempted to set up a "protective unit," a Lebanese counterterrorist strike force.

President Reagan and the CIA called off covert operations when Lebanese intelligence operatives -- some allegedly trained by the U.S. -- set off a car bomb on March 8, 1985, in an attempted murder of Sheik Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the Shiite Muslim cleric who some believed to be the spiritual leader of Hezbollah. Over 80 people were killed in the attack near a Beirut mosque. Fadlallah survived.

Many blamed the CIA for the attack, saying it had directed the intelligence operatives to carry it out. Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's national security adviser, says that the operatives who carried out the attack on Fadlallah may have been trained by the U.S., but the individuals who carried it out were "rogue operative[s]," and the CIA in no way sanctioned or supported the attack.

Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221

Kuwait Airways Flight 221, on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan, was hijacked and diverted to Tehran. The hijackers demanded the release of the Kuwait 17. When the demand wasn't met, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development. On the sixth day of the drama, Iranian security forces stormed the plane and released the remaining hostages.

Iran arrested the hijackers, saying they would be brought to trail. But the trial never took place, and the hijackers were allowed to leave the country. There was no U.S. military response. The State Department announced a $250,000 reward for information leading to the arrests of those involved in the hijacking. Later press reports linked Hezbollah's Imad Mughniyah to the hijackings.

June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847

TWA Flight 847 was hijacked en route from Athens to Rome and forced to land in Beirut, Lebanon, where the hijackers held the plane for 17 days. They demanded the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as the release of 700 fellow Shiite Muslim prisoners held in Israeli prisons and in prisons in southern Lebanon run by the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army. When these demands weren't met, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. U.S. sources implicated Hezbollah.

In what was widely perceived as an implicit, never explicit, quid pro quo, the hostages started being released by the hijackers, followed some days after by Israel starting to free some of its hundreds of Shiite prisoners. At the time, U.S. officials denied there was a deal and said Israel had already committed to releasing the prisoners.

Imad Mughniyah, a senior officer with Hezbollah, was secretly indicted for the TWA hijacking in 1987, along with three others. One of those indicted, Mohammed Ali Hamadei, was arrested in Frankfurt, Germany. In 1989 he was convicted in a German court and sentenced to life in prison. Sixteen years later, Imad Mughniyah is still at large. (Editor's Note: See the FBI's list of the "Most Wanted Terrorists," released Oct. 10, 2001.)

October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro;
Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports

On Oct. 7, 1985, off the coast of Egypt, four gunmen hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere. When the demands weren't met, they killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old disabled American tourist. Investigators blamed the Palestine Liberation Front, which some believed to be allied with Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization. Later, U.S. officials were able to link Libya to the PLF and the hijacking.

After the hijackers escaped the Achille Lauro and left Egypt by air, U.S. Navy fighters intercepted their plane and forced it down in Italy. The four hijackers were apprehended, and in 1986, they were found guilty in an Italian court. Two of the hijackers escaped from prison. One, Magid al-Molgi, who confessed to killing Mr. Klinghoffer, was caught and returned to prison. The man identified as the mastermind of the hijacking, Abu Abbas, was released by Italy despite Washington's pleas that he be held for trial.

Then on Dec. 17, 1985, airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, five of whom were Americans. This time, U.S. officials said they were able to link Libya to the bombing attacks. In January, U.S. officials decided to send the Navy and its warplanes to patrol the Gulf of Sidra -- in territorial waters claimed by Libya -- in an effort to provoke Qaddafi. The White House warned Qaddafi that any Libyan forces further than 12 miles from shore were subject to attack. (The U.S. and other nations used an international standard, set at only 12 miles from Libya's coast, to mark the country's territorial waters; Qaddafi said that Libya's territorial waters extended more than 100 miles from the coastline.) At this point, the face-off between the U.S. and Libya escalated.

April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque

An American soldier was killed when a bomb was detonated at La Belle, a discotheque in West Berlin known to be popular with off-duty U.S. servicemen. A Turkish woman was killed, and nearly 200 others were wounded. U.S. intelligence sources identified Libya as being responsible for the attack. [For more on the evidence pointing to Libya, see interviews with Paul Bremer, Caspar Weinberger, and Robert Oakley.] In Berlin, five individuals were tried for carrying out the bombing of the discotheque. In November 2001, four of the defendants were convicted and sentenced, while the fifth was acquitted. The court found only Verena Chanaa guilty of murder; she was sentenced to 14 years. Prosecutors said Chanaa, a 42-year-old German national, brought the bomb into the disco in a handbag. Three other defendants were all convicted of multiple counts of attempted murder. Yasir Shraydi, a Palestinian who was said to have assembled the bomb, was sentenced to 14 years, while Musbah Eter, a Libyan diplomat, and Verena Chanaa's former husband, Palestinian Ali Chanaa, were sentenced to 12 years apiece. Verena Chanaa's sister, 36-year-old Andrea Haeusler, was acquitted. She had accompanied Verena Chanaa to the disco on the night of the bombing.

After U.S. intelligence intercepted Libyan government communications implicating Libya in the La Belle disco attack, President Reagan ordered retaliatory air strikes on Tripoli and Benghazi. The operation on April 15, 1986, dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon, involved 200 aircraft and over 60 tons of bombs. One of the residences of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qadaffi was hit in the attack, which, according to Libyan estimates, killed 37 people and injured 93 others. As a result of this American operation, U.S. national security officials say Libyan-sponsored terrorism ceased "for a long time." (See interviews with Robert Oakley and L.Paul Bremer.)

Two days after the U.S. retaliatory attack, the bodies of three American University of Beirut employees -- American Peter Kilburn and Britons John Douglas and Philip Padfield -- were discovered near Beirut shot to death. The Arab Revolutionary Cells, a pro-Libyan group of Palestinians affiliated with terrorist Abu Nidal, claimed to have executed the three men in retaliation for Operation El Dorado Canyon.

December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people on board were killed, along with 11 on the ground. According to the State Department's "Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1991," released in April 1992, the bombing of Pan Am 103 "was an action authorized by the Libyan Government." Though there were reports that Syria and Iran also played significant roles in the attack, U.S. officials were never able to tie the two countries to the bombing. No one has ever taken credit for planting the bomb.

In May 2000 the trial of the two Libyan intelligence officers charged with planting the bomb started in the Netherlands. It ended in February 2001 with the conviction of defendant Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi; he received a life sentence. The other defendant, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted and set free.

[1] After the shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, was dethroned during the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, he traveled to the U.S. for treatment of lymphatic cancer. Fearing that the shah's visit to the U.S. indicated that Washington was plotting to restore the monarchy, some 80 Iranian students staged a sit-in at the American embassy, where the U.S. hostages were subsequently seized.

10/13/2006 02:48:31 PM · #70

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by coronamv:
Reagan Said it best "we will not give in to terrorist or their demands." You lose when you attempt deal with them. Of course this is where we differ. I believe and so does the government of The United States and a larger part of the Global economic Countries that the NK Regime (government for the PC people) act in a classic style like terrorist. So talking only delays the inebitable.

I think that statement was probably made in the context of Libya - a country behind a lot of the 80s terrorism affecting the US, and which the US now embraces following reforms driven by sanctions, diplomacy and only very minor military involvement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this diplomacy was of the 'you are with us or against us' variety which Libya seemed to take quite seriously given their sudden change of heart.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/13/2006 03:46:34 PM · #71

That and the threat of being wiped off the face of the planet tended to change their mind.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

10/13/2006 07:25:10 PM · #72

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Amazing: still arguing that establishing civil war and killing hundreds of thousands elsewhere is effective at reducing the threat of terrorism in the US... despite the various reports that highlight the consequent growth of the threat and the risk that the war will be lost at the expense of many more lives.

Because, I believe that said issue is far greater than Iraq. And I believe winning in Iraq can make a difference. However, I do not believe losing in Iraq will make much difference...in that I believe a greater war has come. Iraq is simply a battle. Winning any battle can help influence the tide of war. Losing or not fighting a battle simply lets the tide roll in unchecked.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Maybe you should visit the middle east sometime: you might appreciate how destroying and ruining millions of lives in another nation for political gain might lead to resentment, and therefore a bigger problem than you started with.

See you view this all about politcs. I do not. I did not see much political gain for President Bush. In fact, I've seens tons of fallout over the war. If political gain was what was being sought than Iraq was surely not it.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Which "enemies" are you referring to? Back to "with us or against us", all or nothing analysis? There are a lot of countries that are US-allies. There are a lot of those countries that oppose US policies in one form or another. There are a very few or no countries that are politically opposed to the US in all respects, or that call for the US to be annihilated. What is the dedicated "enemy" that you seek to oppose?

I was referring to the islamofascists who are not bound by any single nation state but see themselves beyond the concept of the nationstate. They are, more akin to a multi-national corporation who is invested in a great many nations and continents.

And yes, the "enemy" I have referred to has specifically called for the U.S. to be annihilated. That said, there are even a few nation states which have made such threats. Iran and N. Korea being two of them. That said, I do not believe the statement of their nationstates reflect the feelings or opinions of all their citizens.

The concept of the nation state is fairly out-of-date. It exists, surely, but it has been transcended on many levels.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Which part of N Korea is "islamofascist"?

None, there just good ol' traditional fascists. ;)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Does this apply to N Korea? Is the answer to "change their minds" or "eradicate them"?

a) It applies only to the leadership of N. Korea
b) I do not believe it applies to the people of N. Korea. I believe S. Korea is testimony of that fact.
c) I have not called for the eradication of said people.
d) I do not define the people of N. Korea the "enemy" just the leadership. I consider the people N. Korea's most affected victims.

I think you are taking my statement incorrectly:

"There is no way to convince "civilization" of a need without a shadow of a doubt to annihilate an enemy. At best, you can convince a majority into taking some action which is hoped will subdue and perhaps lead the enemy on a different path. But rest assured, the enemy is dedicated to our annihilation."

I was not calling for the eradication of people. I said there is no way to convince "civilization" of such a need to annihilate an enemy. Civilization might be spurned to action in the hopes of subduing the enemy or influencing them to no longer be a threat. That said, the enemies of "Civilization" are very much determined and set upon OUR eradication. THAT was my point.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Do you really pretend to understand the reasoning of the "islamafascist"? Or the North Korean? Is your analysis that we have done everything that we could do, and now it is all down to "their" failure to understand us?

Do I believe we've done all we can do. Heck no...

Do I believe that I understand the reasoning of "islamofascists" enough to know that their understandings are incompatible with Civilization. Yes. I have.

As for N. Korea, I believe there is a lot more opportunity to dialogue. The biggest danger I see with N. Korea is either a) their selling of the technology to those for which dialogue poses no solution (islamofascists) or b) succumbing to the

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

GWB declaring N Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil" is widely believed to be one of the reasons why N Korea felt sufficiently threatened to carry out the nuclear test.

Hmm...funny, I think it was behavior and threat of nuclear development on the part of N. Korea that got it that label.

We're afraid of calling a Spade a Spade. It's like saying to a kid on the playground. The reason you're being hit by Robby is because you called him a bully. So when N. Korea threatens Washington DC and NYC. I guess we shouldn't call tell them 'bad..' that might hurt their feelings.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured).

You really don't believe that do you?

I'd wager sanctions will only hurt the poor people while the leaders will feast on caviar.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

You will probably call me an appeaser, for wishing for better dialogue, rather than a military solution. However, given that N Korea has nuclear force, a large army, and probable Chinese defence, there is no viable US-led military alternative.

No, for the reasons you just gave their I'd say you're darn intelligent. Those plus the fact that there is still potential for dialogue and influence by China is what I explain to everyone who decries "why don't we attack N. Korea like we did Iraq". I personally think it would be a foolish decision in said case. And I think there are still other viable options at this time.

I however, do not believe sanctions are an effective option.

So believe it or not, I am in strong agreement with you on this regard. And have stated so.

Originally posted by "coronamy":

When you refer to grouping a nation into a catagory you are refering to the Government of that nation.. Correct? And please show me where GWB labeled any group of people separate from government. and please show me don't just state it. Yes I want proof. And since you say it prove it. thanks

If I am referring to a nation, then yes. GWB repeatedly labelled the people seperate from the government. Especially in regards to both Afghanistan and Iraq. When he made repeated statements regarding the oppressive regimes and liberating the people.

Originally posted by "Judith Polakoff":

China provides 70 percent (not sure if that's exactly right, but something close) of North Korea's food and fuel aid. So if China gets serious about sanctions and, presumably, withholding a good deal of that aid, it could potentially cause the collapse of the regime.

Sadly, the regime hasn't fallen nor been moved to cede control even in the past when it's people were starving and reports of cannibalism were coming from the worst hit regions.

Originally posted by "srdanz":

By now we must have learned that it is not the toppling of the regime that is the problem - it is finding a suitable replacement that is tough.

True, though I think if N. Korea were to fall, S. Korea would step up to the plate. And I think that provides an alternative not available in Iraq.

Originally posted by "srdanz":

What is the deal with refusing to talk to them? What kind of diplomacy is that?

We HAVE NOT refused to talk with them. We've just refused "one-on-one" talks. The reason for from what I understand is that the last time we engaged such talks it essentially equated to international blackmail. Give us lots and lots of money or we do x, y, z. Having multi-national talks keeps the dialog a bit more open.

Funny, why is it America is condemned as refusing to talk. When in fact, we have not. We've repeatedly called for multi-national talks. We simply have refused to talk behind close-doors.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I think that the electromagnetic pulse that precedes a nuclear blast destroys all electronic equipment and information stored magnetically. The only thing that might survive is film!

Nope, most film is ruined by the high level of gamma/x-rays if I recall correctly. Actually, they use a type of film to measure exposure. The radiation causes the film to expose. As the film changes color you know how much radiation you've been hit with. But that is specialized film. I believe regular photography film pretty much all gets exposed.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Hezbollah with Hamas with Al Queda with the Taliban (and for good measure, probably the Iranian government and even the North Korean government) in the "war on terror"

N. Korea, not so much. Danger lies mostly in their likelihood to sell to the other named groups.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Quaeda, Taliban....well, they're all adherents of a dogma and believe in enforcing that dogma thru force, death and terrorism. Do some have different goals and agendas. To a degree yes, but the same general philosophy.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Saying he is "out of control", "must be stopped", "an immediate threat" is alarmist.

Hmm.... and should I not be alarmed? I mean, when his regime exclaims they can fire a nuclear warhead at Washington or New York City.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The North Koreans could be classified as Buddhist Extremists. Or Buddafascists.

There is quite a bit of difference. N. Korea is dictated much more so by the regime itself. It's people do not have a dogmatic belief that they are intent on exporting to the surrounding area and to all the world. They're not intent on making everyone Bhuddist or dead.

Big difference. N. Korea is a "nationstate" issue in my book.

The islamofascists are a dogma issue not tied directly to a nationstate. Albeit, with strong ties to certain nationstates.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

1) I believe one must first evaluate if their own way is necessary or right
2) Second, evaluate if there is a means for both parties to have their way or at least their necessities
3) If so, see if second party will accept such a mutually beneficial win-win scenario
4) Attempt to avoid second party if possible so as to avoid conflict
5) If unable to avoid threat or conflict take an action so as to display potential force.
6) If second party continues pursuit of agression, exercise strength to eliminate threat.
7) Endeavor to show mercy. If threat eliminated, cease from actions and see if other party is willing to cease hostility.
8) If so, endeavor to help and restore other parties dignity and strength. If not, choose between your destruction or theirs.
9) I see you've chosen self-preservation. A wise choice...

The above is really my personal philosophy for handling life. You will see there is no appeasement. If we cannot be mutually satisifed, I will attempt avoidance. I will accept a win-win, or a win-lose, but not a lose-win scenario. (Remember I stated necessity...that can vary on setting. And it's up to each man to decide what in fact constitutes a necessity.)

My personal experience is that the above has allowed me to avoid a great many fights. However, I've never lost a full fledge fight. In truth, I've seldom been in one. Most of the time use of rule #5 has put a cessation to the situation.

Originally posted by "coronamv":

Americans who were kidnapped included journalist Terry Anderson, American University of Beirut librarian Peter Kilburn, and Benjamin Weir, a Presbyterian minister. While some of the prisoners lived through captivity -- Anderson spent the longest time as a hostage, 2,454 days -- some, including Buckley, died in captivity or were killed by their kidnappers.

Terry Anderson was actually related to my first girlfriend whom I was dating at the time of his release. Been a long time since I've thought back to then in anything more than passing. I wonder if I can find her on MySpace these days?

10/13/2006 07:38:09 PM · #73

I hate the term islaamofacism. It gives them far too much credit. Facism implies an authoritarian government in bed with big corporations. These people haven't managed to create either one in thousands of years. Closest they've come are theocracies who rely on the developed nations to create their wealth for them.

Call them what they are. The vocal and visible part of a group of people who hold backwards world views in which religion trumps all other concerns. This isn't 1306 AD. It is time for the civilized parts of the world to stop attempting to 'accept' and 'understand' these societies and either demand they assimiliate and become productive members of the world community else completely isolate them and let them suffer whatever fate has in store for them. Get off oil, do not subsidize their governments, do not send aid to their people. Remove every source of support that subsidizes the continuance of their archaic way of life.

They can pray that Allah will turn sand and oil into bread and water.

Evolve or die.

Message edited by author 2006-10-13 19:39:12.

10/13/2006 08:44:10 PM · #74

Actually Fascism is defined as following. Not really a corporation in the sense of business but as follows. Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

The word fascism stems from the word fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean bundle, as in a political or militant group, or a nation. The term also comes from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity; the bundle of rods bound together symbolizes strength

But I do agree time to step into the civilized world. To think about it there was another Leader in history that lead his people down a self righteous path of self purification. It took the world to stand united to stop this man. Do I need to mention his name?

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Message edited by author 2006-10-13 20:48:16.

RayEthier