North Korean Nukes

D

dennis_t

CAGiversary!
I'm suprised there isn't a thread up for North Korea's nuke test.

So here's the question: How much crap gets spattered onto Bush and the Republican Party as a result of this?

I would say heaping helpings, as they neglected North Korea's clear signals that it would pursue nuclear arms in favor of attacking a constrained country with no terrorist ties, Iraq.

Clinton had subdued North Korea with food and fuel deals, and actually had North and South Korea talking with each other. Bush scuttled that, because why negotiate and use diplomacy when you can talk tough?

And here we are.
 
You're joking about clinton right?

http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

I can provide more examples of what went on during the Clinton years. Just ask.

That is why there is no thread, because these libs on here know the Clinton administration had a lot to do with the Nuke test this past weekend, NOT the Bush Administration.

Negotiation and Diplomacy with Dictators and nutjobs? Don't you libs ever learn?
 
I guess people forgot about the light water generators wrapped with hugs and kisses Clinton gave the Norks back in the days of lewinsky.

But let's all blame bush; who gives a fuck that slick willy GAVE THE fuckING NORKS THE TOOLS TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON when we can all sit around and think of fun new words for chimpymcflightsuit?

There are a multitude of other things for which bush is responsible for that can be repeated over and over again without having to make up shit (i.e. that Bush somehow was responsible for NK having a pussified version of the bomb) simply because you can't be bothered to look past the liberal talking points and take a fucking history lesson.

IOW, You want to debate the liklihood of Bush's utter lack of attention to Ahmgonnadieinajihad's multiple warnings of nuclear destruction being the catylist for a reinvigorated Irani nuclear race, fine. But let's keep perspective here and attribute blame where it belongs; not where we wish it did.

Besides, Japan will nuke that sorry little midget's ass the minute his rocket powered WMD's become more than a failed 7th grade special olympics science fair project. If you want to get scared about nuclear attacks, at least attribute your worry to the right nutjob dictator.

V
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']I guess people forgot about the light water generators wrapped with hugs and kisses Clinton gave the Norks back in the days of lewinsky.

V[/quote]

What was great yesterday was Hillary Clinton on blaming the Bush Administration.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Negotiation and Diplomacy with Dictators and nutjobs? Don't you libs ever learn?[/QUOTE]

I take it you severely disapprove of what we're doing with Iran right now.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']You're joking about clinton right?

http://www.cnsnews.com/Pentagon/Archive/1998-2000/DEF20000417a.html

I can provide more examples of what went on during the Clinton years. Just ask.

That is why there is no thread, because these libs on here know the Clinton administration had a lot to do with the Nuke test this past weekend, NOT the Bush Administration.

Negotiation and Diplomacy with Dictators and nutjobs? Don't you libs ever learn?[/QUOTE]


I love the fact that even though their Dear Leader has been on the job for SIX YEARS, the lizard brains say he's not responsible for North Korean nukes.

Let's say Clinton did make mistakes (a point I am not conceding, btw). Bush has had SIX YEARS to deal with North Korea. SIX YEARS to come up with new policies, to engage in diplomacy, hell, even to invade that country. SIX YEARS to undo whatever "damage" Clinton caused.

But he sat on his ass and let North Korea proceed. He did NOTHING.

Spin that one away, lizard brains.
 
touche, myke.

Schuerm, although I tend to agree with most of your points, I have to say that at least on the surface, baseline talks with crazy death-worshiping dictators armed with WMD's, while maybe reprehensible to those who think we should shoot first and ask questions later, isn't really that bad of an idea.

And while you already know this, I feel I have to remind you that our countries' political ideloligies, while seeming polar on some issues, remains for the most part closer together than that of many (if not all) other 1st world countries. That being said, don't you think it is better to exhaust all other methods of resolving the Iran nuke problem (in the eyes of the american people) than to refuse any negotiation; if faced with the same end result?

IOW, if in all likliehood nothing we do changes the fact that Ahmidinnerjacket is going to have a nuke pointed at the US, don't you agree that more people will be at ease with signing off on a military action knowing that we did all we could (and even sucked it up and tried concedeing certain things in the interest of peace) to stop it from happening?

I for one can unequivocally say that, while having any talk with this psycho nutjob of a dictator that doesn't involve my .357 being pressed to the side of his America-hating temple isn't the first on my wish list, in my mind the shot at your pride that having to appear weak (via a negotiation with this piece of shit) might take is much better than watching America divide when use of military force on Iran becomes inevitable.
 
Oh yeah.

If you watched Countdown yesterday he explain that our crazy ass dumbfuck "Defense" Secretary was on the chairboard of the company that sold the North Koreans the tech needed to make weapons grade shit.

But it's both Clintons and Bush's fault. I don't understand why people only blame one or another. They are both huge ass fuck ups.
 
So Clinton is at fault? When will conservatives stop falling back on blaming Clinton for all their woes? Something tells me they wont look at the previous administration if there's a democratic president from 2009-2012. But the truth of the matter is that two light-water nuclear reactors were given in exchange for Pyongyang ending its nuclear weapons program. And what company was responsible for these reactors? Oh what do you know .. a company in which Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board of directors but declines to discuss or admit he know what was happening:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/05/12/342316/index.htm


Also here's an interesting excerpt from an article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/09/AR2006100901130.html

[quote name='Washington Post']
All three issues came to a head in 2003: The United States invaded Iraq and discovered no weapons of mass destruction; North Korea began to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from fuel rods that had been under international observation; and Iran disclosed that it had made rapid progress with a previously secret uranium-enrichment program.

In contrast to its handling of Iraq, the administration has tried to resolve the North Korean and Iranian nuclear breakouts with diplomacy. But progress has been slow, in part because the United States has been reluctant to hold bilateral talks with either country except within the context of broader talks with other nations.[/quote]

I know I shouldnt post information from CNN and The Washington Post because it's not Fox News and therefore isnt legitimate but I figured someone might be interested in seeing these articles.


EDIT: Also, I just wanted to point out that we shouldnt be playing a blame game here. This issue is more important than who is at fault. It's just that I get angry when I see constant blame on Clinton and democrats for everything that goes wrong and I feel a need to defend it.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']touche, myke.

Schuerm, although I tend to agree with most of your points, I have to say that at least on the surface, baseline talks with crazy death-worshiping dictators armed with WMD's, while maybe reprehensible to those who think we should shoot first and ask questions later, isn't really that bad of an idea.

[/quote]

Aren't "talks" what Clinton and his administration did though, and now it has led to this? Correct me if im wrong.

To the above poster, you get angry when constant blame is put on the CLinton administration? What do you think everyone does to the Bush administration?
 
malker, do you even fucking read any post that doesn't fall in line exactly with liberal talking points?

The premise of this post was to push the blame on Bush for the nork's having nukes; I said clinton deserves as much, if not more of the blame than bush does (as it was Clinton who gave NK the fucking light-water generators in the first fucking place).

Nowhere did I say Bush was innocent; Nowhere. do you get that?

f u c k.

Is it really too much to ask that people stop looking at these events as black or white, and realize that no one is blameless?

Do we really need another comment board to be an echo chamber for the right or left?

I promise, the only thing that happens when you step outside the comfort of talking points and into the reality of having to sometimes admit that the party you so vigorously support fucked up is you learn what things like intellectual honesty and integrity are. (that goes for all political ideoligies, BTW).

one post hit-jobs in response to a well-reasoned post only make you look like the little bitch in grade school that threw a temper tantrum when she lost the spelling bee.

Isn't that right, evanft/EZB/Cheese/metalboss/camoor?
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Aren't "talks" what Clinton and his administration did though, and now it has led to this? Correct me if im wrong.

To the above poster, you get angry when constant blame is put on the CLinton administration? What do you think everyone does to the Bush administration?[/quote]

Ok now keep going with that avenue of thinking. Clinton left office in 2000 .. what happened after that? Bush took over. So obviously his "talks" werent successful. It's my understanding that not only werent they successful that his administration decided to basically ignore North Korea altogether. And I mean ignore in the sense of communications .. I dont think the Bush administration or intelligence community has ever ignored North Korea and it's actions.
 
and schuerm, no one is saying that we should simply mimic the Clinton talks and call it good; rather I am saying we have to be honest and realize that what we are facing will take no less than the entire US to unite to defeat.

My premise is that it is better to take steps to exhaust all non violent avenues of negotiation if for nothing more than to prove to any naysayers that the military option is the only way to stop the threat of a nuclear war.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Aren't "talks" what Clinton and his administration did though, and now it has led to this? Correct me if im wrong.

To the above poster, you get angry when constant blame is put on the CLinton administration? What do you think everyone does to the Bush administration?[/QUOTE]

Actually, schuerm, Clinton's strategy had contained North Korea's nuclear ambitions by working to take away the motivation that country would have to pursue nukes -- providing food and electricity, bringing it into the international community, etc.

And guess what? Bush actually ended up turning back to Clinton's strategy, but far too late to actually have any impact on a country he treated with contempt for his first year-plus in office:

This week, after 20 months of doing nothing about North Korea's drive to build nuclear weapons, President Bush finally put a proposal—a set of incentives for disarmament—on the negotiating table. The remarkable thing is, the deal is practically identical to the accord that President Clinton signed with Pyongyang in 1994—an accord that Bush condemned and scuttled from the moment he took over the White House. (For more on this tale, click here and here.)

It's good that Bush has at last realized that diplomacy is the only way to solve the crisis. But he's come a bit late to this epiphany. North Korea has greatly strengthened its hand in the interim. Two years ago, its 8,000 fuel rods were padlocked under international inspection. Now, they've been reprocessed into bomb-grade plutonium.

Had Bush made the offer back when he first had the chance, Kim Jong-il probably would have taken it. Kim may take it still; his closest allies, the Chinese, are urging him to. But if he behaves the way he usually behaves—the way any cunningly rational leader in his position would behave—he will up the ante, ask for more, and walk away with a shrug if Bush declines. And he knows that there's not much Bush can do about it.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/id/2102963/

Read the analysis. Check the news links. Understand that Bush ended up doing EXACTLY what Clinton had left in place when he left office, but months after it might have made a difference. And then come back here and try to argue that this situation is anything other than an arrogance-fueled, Dubya-grade fuck-up of literally doomsday proportions.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']
My premise is that it is better to take steps to exhaust all non violent avenues of negotiation if for nothing more than to prove to any naysayers that the military option is the only way to stop the threat of a nuclear war.[/quote]

Ok, ill agree to that (such as the naval blockades that Bolton was talking about). Though i won't agree that talks will ever work.
 
dennis, you forgot the part about clinton giving them light-water generators (you know, the kind used to provide the basics of nuclear technology) in your rant about how the great Clinton is to be held blameless.

seriously dude, read a fucking history book.
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']dennis, you forgot the part about clinton giving them light-water generators (you know, the kind used to provide the basics of nuclear technology) in your rant about how the great Clinton is to be held blameless.

seriously dude, read a fucking history book.[/QUOTE]

Veritas,

Perhaps you should do a little research before you shoot your mouth off. If you did, you might understand that the deal for those reactors FELL THROUGH, and North Korea never received them.

US officials have long feared that North Korea was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. In 1994, the Clinton administration agreed to provide light-water reactors to North Korea in exchange for an end to Pyongyang's uranium-enrichment program. But the agreement was never fully implemented, and the reactors were never built. In 2002, the Bush administration accused North Korea of cheating on the deal by secretly processing plutonium, an alternative method for creating fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/10/10/us_urges_tough_n_korea_sanctions/
 
[quote name='Veritas1204']malker, do you even fucking read any post that doesn't fall in line exactly with liberal talking points?[/QUOTE]

Uh.. Does anyone else want to tell call BS on this hilarious piece of irony or shall I?
 
And in our next chapter of never questioning Dear Leader.....

Today, a reporter asked if President Bush believes he has made any mistakes with respect to North Korea. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded, “Oh, my goodness…it’s a silly question.” Later, he called the question “gratuitious.” Snow explained that “you need to give presidents the benefit of the doubt when national security is involved.” Watch it:
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/10/snow-north-korea-silly/


Because when you say you won't allow a country to get nukes....and then said country gets nukes....why, that couldn't be a failure at all! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
 
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday defended the Bush administration's refusal to hold bilateral talks with North Korea in the face of Pyongyang's claim of a successful nuclear test.



yeah lets not talk to them, its a good way to work out problems, well since we are out of real troops to send, I hear we are gearin up the Boy Scouts for combat duty. This whole situation reminds me of Ned Flanders' parents, "We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas". They have done nothing the whole time in office, and now they want to do the smallest steps of talking.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Actually, schuerm, Clinton's strategy had contained North Korea's nuclear ambitions by working to take away the motivation that country would have to pursue nukes -- providing food and electricity, bringing it into the international community, etc.

And guess what? Bush actually ended up turning back to Clinton's strategy, but far too late to actually have any impact on a country he treated with contempt for his first year-plus in office:[/QUOTE]

Complete and utter bullshit. Before the ink dried on the Agreed Framework Clinton put into place with North Korea, they were cheating on the agreement. They never had any intention of stopping nuclear weapons development. That was not and never was contained. Clinton's strategy was one of appeasement, plain and simple - give North Korea oil and nuclear plants and maybe they'll be happy, just like Hitler was happy with Sudetenland.

And quite clearly Bush has not gone back to Clinton's strategy of appeasement. The current administration has instead attempted de-nuclearization talks with all influential parties in the region, most importantly China. Due to North Korean intransigence and Chinese reluctance to take concrete measures, these have largely been a bust. But what other choice have we? The damage was done back in 1994 and in this kind of situation you don't get a second chance. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration played Chamberlain and passed the problem on to his successors.
 
I haven't read the thread, but I'll put in my opinions either way. I've been thinking about this all the time since yesterday, and I think they will use The Bomb.

They are one of the few countries who have a nuclear bomb, and one of the even fewer who have succesfully tested one. When America tested their Bomb, the people said "No way that they will use it, no country is stupid enough." At least that's what Romania said. Guess what: they were stupid enough. What's going to stop Korea from using their weapons? They could easily drop several bombs in America in key locations: Washington DC, New York City, the city where Fort Knox is located, and LA. This would cripple everything that America has. Population, economy, military, etc.

I truly think that we are leading into a World War III. Israeli conflicts are getting worse, Lebanon has joined fighting, Iraq is in civil war (in which USA has intruded upon). Iran is allegedly creating a nuclear bomb, N. Korea has them, France is getting pretty pissed at the rest of the world (as most of Europe is), and it's just like that flash animation "End Of Ze World".

Makes me wanna vomit. :puke:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Complete and utter bullshit. Before the ink dried on the Agreed Framework Clinton put into place with North Korea, they were cheating on the agreement. They never had any intention of stopping nuclear weapons development. That was not and never was contained. Clinton's strategy was one of appeasement, plain and simple - give North Korea oil and nuclear plants and maybe they'll be happy, just like Hitler was happy with Sudetenland.

And quite clearly Bush has not gone back to Clinton's strategy of appeasement. The current administration has instead attempted de-nuclearization talks with all influential parties in the region, most importantly China. Due to North Korean intransigence and Chinese reluctance to take concrete measures, these have largely been a bust. But what other choice have we? The damage was done back in 1994 and in this kind of situation you don't get a second chance. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration played Chamberlain and passed the problem on to his successors.[/QUOTE]

I would refer you to the Slate article I posted earlier this thread, which addresses many of your comments.

And I would also remind you that the North Koreans started their real push for nuclear weapons when Bush trashed the Agreed Framework. Bush ended up coming back around, but after the North Koreans had already gone far down the path of nuclear armament and saw that he had nothing to offer them and would not dare invade, since he was too preoccupied with Iraq.

Diplomacy does not equal appeasement. If you want someone to do something for you, you have to show them that it is in their best interest to do so. Otherwise, why should they? Case in point.....North Korea!

Oh, and by the way, you mentioned Nazis, so by net rules this thread has to shut down.

;)
 
Nobody is appeasing they just did a few test. Nobody should be concerned about it. You can walk bacl and forth between the Two Koreas. Korea's problem is that everybody forgot what really went on back in the Naszi Hitler and red Threath days.
 
[quote name='Full_Throttle']I haven't read the thread, but I'll put in my opinions either way. I've been thinking about this all the time since yesterday, and I think they will use The Bomb.

They are one of the few countries who have a nuclear bomb, and one of the even fewer who have succesfully tested one. When America tested their Bomb, the people said "No way that they will use it, no country is stupid enough." At least that's what Romania said. Guess what: they were stupid enough. What's going to stop Korea from using their weapons? They could easily drop several bombs in America in key locations: Washington DC, New York City, the city where Fort Knox is located, and LA. This would cripple everything that America has. Population, economy, military, etc.

[/QUOTE]

First, a few nuclear bombs would not cripple the US. And the threat of retalliation would be too great. Detection of ICBMs from N. Korea could be countered with 1 nuclear armed submarine which could completely annihilate N. Korea.

A greater fear is that they will sell a nuclear device to a terrorist organization that WILL use it, but it won't go off here. It'll go off in downtown Tel Aviv. The threat of nuclear retalliation goes out the window if there's no country to blow to smithereens.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Diplomacy does not equal appeasement. If you want someone to do something for you, you have to show them that it is in their best interest to do so. Otherwise, why should they? Case in point.....North Korea![/QUOTE]

North Korea was offered everything it claimed to want and still rejected the offer. So obviously they are just into delaying tactics to develop nukes, that much is crystal clear now.

And Clinton's "diplomacy" was certainly appeasement because he made huge concessions without effective verification, then closed his eyes and hummed for 7 years as the North Koreans violated the agreement.
 
[quote name='RegalSin2020']Nobody is appeasing they just did a few test. Nobody should be concerned about it. You can walk bacl and forth between the Two Koreas. Korea's problem is that everybody forgot what really went on back in the Naszi Hitler and red Threath days.[/QUOTE]

Fiction in this case doesn't put my mind at ease.
 
[quote name='Full_Throttle']I haven't read the thread, but I'll put in my opinions either way. I've been thinking about this all the time since yesterday, and I think they will use The Bomb.

They are one of the few countries who have a nuclear bomb, and one of the even fewer who have succesfully tested one. When America tested their Bomb, the people said "No way that they will use it, no country is stupid enough." At least that's what Romania said. Guess what: they were stupid enough. What's going to stop Korea from using their weapons? They could easily drop several bombs in America in key locations: Washington DC, New York City, the city where Fort Knox is located, and LA. This would cripple everything that America has. Population, economy, military, etc.[/quote]

They couldn't drop bombs anywhere in the U.S. In fact, they probably couldn't hit the U.S. with their missiles yet (although it's debatable). However, they are improving their missiles and test them from time to time, so in the future that is a possibility. The much more likely scenario is them selling a bomb to terrorists or to a country like Iran or Sudan.

[quote name='Full_Throttle']I truly think that we are leading into a World War III. Israeli conflicts are getting worse, Lebanon has joined fighting, Iraq is in civil war (in which USA has intruded upon). Iran is allegedly creating a nuclear bomb, N. Korea has them, France is getting pretty pissed at the rest of the world (as most of Europe is), and it's just like that flash animation "End Of Ze World".[/QUOTE]

This sentiment is way overblown. It's very bad for the world, but not the end of it. Remember, we lived with a real possibilty of total world annihilation just 20 years ago.
 
Dubya still isn't finished with "My Pet Goat". So of course he didn't have time for bilateral talks with North Korea in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

This was also an issue in the 2004 elections, and Kerry was blasting Dubya for falling asleep at the switch. But since North Korea doesn't have oil, why would Dubya give a shiit?
 
Does anyone remember this?

Thursday, December 12, 2002
PYONGYANG, North Korea -- North Korea is being urged not to restart a nuclear power plant suspected of being used to develop atomic arms before it was mothballed eight years ago.

North Korea announced Thursday it would immediately reactivate nuclear facilities shut down under a joint agreement which Pyongyang now regards as defunct.

The announcement, which the United States has decribed as "regrettable", comes two months after North Korea admitted it has a secret and active nuclear weapons program begun years after it promised to never again pursue such a course.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warned that any unilateral move by the North Koreans to remove agency seals and monitoring cameras at its nuclear facilities would contravene agreements between Pyongyang and the United Nations, Associated Press reports.

The director-general called on North Korea not to do anything that would further compromise his agency's ability to monitor its nuclear material.

He said North Korea had asked his agency to remove seals and monitoring cameras from all its nuclear facilities but urged officials there to agree to leave them in place.

"It is essential that the containment and surveillance measures which are currently in place continue to be maintained, and that the DPRK not take any steps unilaterally to remove or impede the function of such seals or cameras," he said, using the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

One U.S. official told CNN Thursday that the decision to reactive the nuclear facilities is "regrettable and a step in the wrong direction," and a formal response from the Bush administration is being prepared.

But this official said the U.S. message was being closely coordinated with South Korea and Japan and would track statements already issued by those key allies in Asia.

The statement urged Pyongyang to keep its obligation under the 1994 agreement, and called for a peaceful resolution to the situation through dialogue, according to Yonhap.

The U.S. official said the United States would make clear "we wish this is a step they do not take" and that "the United States and its allies are no threat to North Korea or the North Korean people."

The official also said, however, that the Bush administration would hold to its position that it will not respond to such statements by North Korea by offering negotiations. North Korea says it wants to resolve disputes over its nuclear program peacefully.

Another source, a senior administration official, told CNN the United States has been expecting this for the past six weeks and does "not believe it is a crisis."

But at the same time, this official noted, the situation could "get out of hand." (Full story)

For that reason, the Bush administration has decided to deliver a restrained response, regretting the situation but reiterating the president's assurance the United States has "no intention to invade" North Korea and hopes for a "peaceful solution" to the standoff with Pyongyang.

The 1994 "agreed framework" with the United States, Japan and South Korea froze the production and use of North Korea's nuclear facilities, at least one of which was suspected of having the capability of producing weapons-grade plutonium.

In exchange, North Korea received regular shipments of heavy fuel oil and was promised newer and safer nuclear reactors from the three countries.

North Korea said the agreed framework is no longer valid now that it stopped receiving the 500,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, according to KCNA.

North Korea said it is unfreezing the facilities because it needs the power generated by the nuclear plants since the fuel oil shipments were halted earlier this month.

The foreign ministry statement did not say if Pyongyang would expel international monitors at its nuclear facilities, or if they would unseal plutonium in a cooling pond at one plant -- a step that would give them nuclear capability.

The oil program was voided by the United States after it was divulged a few weeks ago that North Korea was engaged in a "highly enriched uranium program" -- violating international agreements and the agreed framework.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a Thursday news conference in Qatar, said U.S. President George W. Bush has indicated he is working with Japan, South Korea and the European Union "to embark on a diplomatic initiative to work with North Korea to see if they wouldn't reverse their position of violating these three or four agreements."

"There clearly is, has been, and I suspect will continue to be a diplomatic effort to have the North Koreans fulfill their international obligations."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/12/12/nkorea.nuclear/

What happened later? Why, NK removed the seals and cameras anyway. Where was Dubya? Preparing to start an illegal war that would cost 3,000 american lives and nearly $1,000,000,000,000 in American taxpayer money to benefit companies like the Carlysle Group and Halliburton, of course.
 
This is an interenational problem, not just a U.S. problem. China and Russia need to step up as if you look at the big picture, this affects them far more then us. North Korea does not yet have the delivery system to hit the U.S. in any significant way. But if North Korea launches a nuke at South Korea or Japan, China and Russia will both get the fallout.

I'm far from being a card carrying Bush supporter but diplomatic options are limited and would just be essentially North Korea using its nuclear capacity to blackmail the U.S. and the international community. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. By not agreeing to bilateral talks, Bush is viewed as ignoring the problem. If he did hold talks and gave concessions to the North Koreans, then he would be roundly criticized for giving in to them, I'm sure with ample comparisons to Chamberlain pre-WW II, especially when (not if) North Korea resumed its nuclear program as their past history hardly labels them as trustworthy. And unlike Iraq, North Korea has a formidable military (not surprising when you spent 50% of your budget on it at the expense of the welfare of your people) and the diplomatic headaches with China and Russia would make invasion unfeasible.

If there is a bright side to this, I actually think this may in the long run improve relations between the U.S. and China. Depsite the overt posturing, China and U.S. have the same interests in this and will work behind the scenes together for a solution that saves face for both sides. North Korea is a pariah in the international community and has no allies so there won't be a WW III. However the concern about a nuke falling into the hands of terrorist organizations is a very real one and this needs to be a top priority.
 
[quote name='dopa345']This is an interenational problem, not just a U.S. problem. China and Russia need to step up as if you look at the big picture, this affects them far more then us. North Korea does not yet have the delivery system to hit the U.S. in any significant way. But if North Korea launches a nuke at South Korea or Japan, China and Russia will both get the fallout.

I'm far from being a card carrying Bush supporter but diplomatic options are limited and would just be essentially North Korea using its nuclear capacity to blackmail the U.S. and the international community. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. By not agreeing to bilateral talks, Bush is viewed as ignoring the problem. If he did hold talks and gave concessions to the North Koreans, then he would be roundly criticized for giving in to them, I'm sure with ample comparisons to Chamberlain pre-WW II, especially when (not if) North Korea resumed its nuclear program as their past history hardly labels them as trustworthy. And unlike Iraq, North Korea has a formidable military (not surprising when you spent 50% of your budget on it at the expense of the welfare of your people) and the diplomatic headaches with China and Russia would make invasion unfeasible.

If there is a bright side to this, I actually think this may in the long run improve relations between the U.S. and China. Depsite the overt posturing, China and U.S. have the same interests in this and will work behind the scenes together for a solution that saves face for both sides. North Korea is a pariah in the international community and has no allies so there won't be a WW III. However the concern about a nuke falling into the hands of terrorist organizations is a very real one and this needs to be a top priority.[/QUOTE]

This is a very good analysis. I agree that Bush's options are limited.

But seeing his options as limited, Bush chose to do nothing for years. That's not an acceptable strategy when you're dealing with a country that is pursuing nukes.

Perhaps we could have threatened them with military action, and followed through on that threat, were we not hip-deep in the sandbox for no good reason. Another cost of the war in Iraq...
 
[quote name='dopa345']This is an interenational problem, not just a U.S. problem. China and Russia need to step up as if you look at the big picture, this affects them far more then us. North Korea does not yet have the delivery system to hit the U.S. in any significant way. But if North Korea launches a nuke at South Korea or Japan, China and Russia will both get the fallout.

I'm far from being a card carrying Bush supporter but diplomatic options are limited and would just be essentially North Korea using its nuclear capacity to blackmail the U.S. and the international community. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. By not agreeing to bilateral talks, Bush is viewed as ignoring the problem. If he did hold talks and gave concessions to the North Koreans, then he would be roundly criticized for giving in to them, I'm sure with ample comparisons to Chamberlain pre-WW II, especially when (not if) North Korea resumed its nuclear program as their past history hardly labels them as trustworthy. And unlike Iraq, North Korea has a formidable military (not surprising when you spent 50% of your budget on it at the expense of the welfare of your people) and the diplomatic headaches with China and Russia would make invasion unfeasible.

If there is a bright side to this, I actually think this may in the long run improve relations between the U.S. and China. Depsite the overt posturing, China and U.S. have the same interests in this and will work behind the scenes together for a solution that saves face for both sides. North Korea is a pariah in the international community and has no allies so there won't be a WW III. However the concern about a nuke falling into the hands of terrorist organizations is a very real one and this needs to be a top priority.[/quote]

Good post. Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Also, I'd like to express my theories as to why this happened:

a) Kim Jong Il is desperate for attention and a need to feel important in the world stage. By this act you cant deny that he has gotten tons of attention and he's probably loving every second of it.

b) I think on some level Kim Jong Il thought that he'd get some sympathy from other countries from doing this. I think it may have been his plan that United States would see this as an act of war and immediately storm into NK and attack with a pre-emptive strike or at the very least impose impossibly restrictive sanctions. The world would then view North Korea with pity and the big bad Americans are bullying a small country again. And then the rest of the world would be against us.

As we can see (b) has definitely back fired. While I'm concerned a nation as small and as isolationist as North Korea potentially has useable nuclear devices, I'm encouraged by the fact that nations such as China, South Korea, and Russia would so quickly condemn the action and independently move to look at imposing sanctions on their own accord without being told to by the UN.
 
[quote name='dopa345']This is an interenational problem, not just a U.S. problem. China and Russia need to step up as if you look at the big picture, this affects them far more then us. North Korea does not yet have the delivery system to hit the U.S. in any significant way. But if North Korea launches a nuke at South Korea or Japan, China and Russia will both get the fallout.

I'm far from being a card carrying Bush supporter but diplomatic options are limited and would just be essentially North Korea using its nuclear capacity to blackmail the U.S. and the international community. So it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. By not agreeing to bilateral talks, Bush is viewed as ignoring the problem. If he did hold talks and gave concessions to the North Koreans, then he would be roundly criticized for giving in to them, I'm sure with ample comparisons to Chamberlain pre-WW II, especially when (not if) North Korea resumed its nuclear program as their past history hardly labels them as trustworthy. And unlike Iraq, North Korea has a formidable military (not surprising when you spent 50% of your budget on it at the expense of the welfare of your people) and the diplomatic headaches with China and Russia would make invasion unfeasible.

If there is a bright side to this, I actually think this may in the long run improve relations between the U.S. and China. Depsite the overt posturing, China and U.S. have the same interests in this and will work behind the scenes together for a solution that saves face for both sides. North Korea is a pariah in the international community and has no allies so there won't be a WW III. However the concern about a nuke falling into the hands of terrorist organizations is a very real one and this needs to be a top priority.[/QUOTE]

Quite a good post. Most of the feelings criticizing Bush's actions towards North Korea, while they may be validly criticizing him for tolerating a nuclear North Korea despite his insistence he wouldn't, can be summed up like this:

WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU TRY THIS IN IRAQ!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It is a catch-22 for Bush at this point. It is one, however, that I feel he put himself into. He's in an unenviable position right now, and the precedent heset in Iraq (yanking out inspectors to start a war) isn't being followed here, under the guise that eastern Asian nations will take care of things.

The trading and selling of nuclear weapons almost necessitates immediate military action. At least go after someone with WMDs during your 8 years.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Does anyone remember this?

What happened later? Why, NK removed the seals and cameras anyway. Where was Dubya? Preparing to start an illegal war that would cost 3,000 american lives and nearly $1,000,000,000,000 in American taxpayer money to benefit companies like the Carlysle Group and Halliburton, of course.[/QUOTE]

Of course (surprise) CNN's article fails to mention that this was an action initiated entirely by North Korea. They violated the Agreed Framework, we called them on it, and then they said, well, now that you know we're violating it and are not going to give us the nuclear plants (appeasement) Clinton promised, we're just going to do the development and harp on it.

You try to slant things to make it sound like Bush didn't care, did nothing, etc. while it was North Korea who violated their side of the agreement and only admitted it when they were confronted by U.S. diplomats with incontravertible proof of their violations. Tell me, what would you strategy have been? Go back to negotiations after they had cheated on their agreements and promise them more concessions?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Of course (surprise) CNN's article fails to mention that this was an action initiated entirely by North Korea. They violated the Agreed Framework, we called them on it, and then they said, well, now that you know we're violating it and are not going to give us the nuclear plants (appeasement) Clinton promised, we're just going to do the development and harp on it.

You try to slant things to make it sound like Bush didn't care, did nothing, etc. while it was North Korea who violated their side of the agreement and only admitted it when they were confronted by U.S. diplomats with incontravertible proof of their violations. Tell me, what would you strategy have been? Go back to negotiations after they had cheated on their agreements and promise them more concessions?[/QUOTE]

You know what Bush should have done? SOMETHING.

It's the same argument about 9/11, when Bush sat there in that classroom all those minutes while our country was under attack. Wingnuts will argue, "What could he have done? Why should he have bolted from the classroom?" And the obvious answer is, "SOMETHING. He could have been doing anything and it would have been better than sitting still."

And it's the same argument that could be made about Katrina. A hurricane bearing down on the Gulf Coast, and Bush asks NO questions in a briefing and does nothing. And wingers ask what he could have done, and the answer comes back, SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

Bush is an empty suit. He's long on talk and short on walk. And if the three items just listed don't convince you of that -- both the items and his follow-through on each of them -- then you truly have drunk deep of the Kool-Aid.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']You know what Bush should have done? SOMETHING.

It's the same argument about 9/11, when Bush sat there in that classroom all those minutes while our country was under attack. Wingnuts will argue, "What could he have done? Why should he have bolted from the classroom?" And the obvious answer is, "SOMETHING. He could have been doing anything and it would have been better than sitting still."

And it's the same argument that could be made about Katrina. A hurricane bearing down on the Gulf Coast, and Bush asks NO questions in a briefing and does nothing. And wingers ask what he could have done, and the answer comes back, SOMETHING. ANYTHING.

Bush is an empty suit. He's long on talk and short on walk. And if the three items just listed don't convince you of that -- both the items and his follow-through on each of them -- then you truly have drunk deep of the Kool-Aid.[/QUOTE]

As much as you want to make this an issue about Bush in general, I am speaking only of North Korea. Those other issues we can save for another topic.

We did do SOMETHING. We confronted them with the evidence they were cheating on the agreements. After they admitted that we attempted to set up a new apparatus in the six-party talks. Unfortunately, by that point they had gotten so far along with their nefarious scheme that they just went for delaying tactics instead of real negotiations. China refused to bring real pressure to bear on their ally (let's face it, they are the only country that can really have an effect other than military), and here we are.

And you didn't answer my question as to what you would suggest we have done.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As much as you want to make this an issue about Bush in general, I am speaking only of North Korea. Those other issues we can save for another topic.

We did do SOMETHING. We confronted them with the evidence they were cheating on the agreements. After they admitted that we attempted to set up a new apparatus in the six-party talks. Unfortunately, by that point they had gotten so far along with their nefarious scheme that they just went for delaying tactics instead of real negotiations. China refused to bring real pressure to bear on their ally (let's face it, they are the only country that can really have an effect other than military), and here we are.

And you didn't answer my question as to what you would suggest we have done.[/QUOTE]

Well, perhaps we could have attacked them, as Clinton threatened to do, were our military not otherwise engaged in futile nation-builiding in the sandbox.

Or perhaps we could have negotiated directly with them. I understand that would have meant giving Kim what he wanted, but sometimes you give a little to get a lot. The bully card doesn't always work, as we are learning now.

And don't bring up the fucking appeasment argument, please. That's just right-wing claptrap that avoids the issue. We wouldn't have been giving up land or selling out an ally. We would have been negotiating with a jerk, trying to give him reasons to be less of a jerk.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Well, perhaps we could have attacked them, as Clinton threatened to do, were our military not otherwise engaged in futile nation-builiding in the sandbox.

Or perhaps we could have negotiated directly with them. I understand that would have meant giving Kim what he wanted, but sometimes you give a little to get a lot. The bully card doesn't always work, as we are learning now.

And don't bring up the fucking appeasment argument, please. That's just right-wing claptrap that avoids the issue. We wouldn't have been giving up land or selling out an ally. We would have been negotiating with a jerk, trying to give him reasons to be less of a jerk.[/QUOTE]

Well, obviously it's very easy to look back and say such and such was a bad idea, although truthfully I did think the Agreed Framework was a horrible sell-out at the time. I would defend the use of "appeasement" because we gave them energy resources and promised to build them nuclear power plants in exchange for them doing what they already agreed to do under the NPT (not develop nuclear weapons). Fortunately, we saw through their deception in time to avoid giving them the most valuable of the promises, the nuclear plants.

I guess I would just say I disagree that when a country agrees to something and then cheats on it then we should just go back to negotiating the same way as if nothing happened. I think that would send a signal of us not being serious about the negotiations, and that them breaking their agreements had no consequences. You can argue what we ended up doing wasn't the right course of action, but personally I'll defend it because I think what we did was more or less the best thing we could have done in that situation. Unfortunately, because of reasons I already stated, it doesn't seem to have worked out, at least not on the main goal.
 
[quote name='Apossum']http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15789651.htm

thought this was reassuring.

"Japan has no plans for nuclear weapons"


They must mean any nuclear weapons besides the ones on Alice Hoshi's chest...zing[/QUOTE]

Most likely Japan, if they get nervous enough (who would blame them?), would ask for us to station nuclear weapons in Japan, much like we did in Europe to counter the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Of course, if they really wanted to they could develop nuclear weapons very easily as they have plenty of people with the know-how.
 
land based, or fixed, nuclear arsenals are obsolete. One ohio class submarine off the north korean coast could obliterate th eentire area of N. Korea in under 10 minutes.

The idea that N. Korea is a threat is pure hyperbole. He's no threat to us. And since when do the lefties believe in being world police? They want us out of Iraq, but demand we do something about Korea? Talk about flip-flopping!

Wait, I can hear their cries again .... "sanctions are working" "we've got him isolated" "peace at all costs"

I join them in their mantras. We've got him right where we want him and I'm sure the left will join us in obliterating them with our own nuclear weapons if they decide to cross the DMZ into the south, right? Or will that be time for more diplomacy?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']The idea that N. Korea is a threat is pure hyperbole. He's no threat to us. And since when do the lefties believe in being world police? They want us out of Iraq, but demand we do something about Korea? Talk about flip-flopping! [/QUOTE]
North Korea is no threat to us, but Iraq was? Explain.
 
[quote name='Full_Throttle']I haven't read the thread, but I'll put in my opinions either way. I've been thinking about this all the time since yesterday, and I think they will use The Bomb.

They are one of the few countries who have a nuclear bomb, and one of the even fewer who have succesfully tested one. When America tested their Bomb, the people said "No way that they will use it, no country is stupid enough." At least that's what Romania said. Guess what: they were stupid enough. What's going to stop Korea from using their weapons? They could easily drop several bombs in America in key locations: Washington DC, New York City, the city where Fort Knox is located, and LA. This would cripple everything that America has. Population, economy, military, etc.

I truly think that we are leading into a World War III. Israeli conflicts are getting worse, Lebanon has joined fighting, Iraq is in civil war (in which USA has intruded upon). Iran is allegedly creating a nuclear bomb, N. Korea has them, France is getting pretty pissed at the rest of the world (as most of Europe is), and it's just like that flash animation "End Of Ze World".

Makes me wanna vomit. :puke:[/quote]

You're letting them win, by letting them scare you. That's all they want to do. Plus, you can't think like this, this is how people get scared and vote for someone to "protect" them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top