Kuvasz, that was a very thoughtful post, and I do appreciate the change in tone. I will try to respond in kind. This thing is getting too big, with all the nested quotes and what not, so I'm going to try to dig down to the meat of the matter. Let me know if you feel I'm sidestepping something particularly relevant.
I'll try one last time to tell you that providing examples of George Bush or Republicans in general doing things wrong or any other partisan nonsense will score you no points in a debate against me. Perhaps
this post will convince you I don't just tow the party line. If not, I give up.
kuvasz wrote: At the time, U.S. military officials were greatly concerned about a North Korean preemptive strike on South Korea and Japan in response to the planned US military buildup, as well as projections for as many as 1 million dead in a full-scale war.
The Front line story from PBS (I hope we agree that's a reputable place to get info) said:
Quote: The Clinton administration decides that it will take every possible action to try and stop the North Korean nuclear weapons program. It considers a strike against the Yongbyon facility, but concludes that the consequences -- an estimated 100,000 casualties from a North Korean reprisal are too severe.
I'll accept that your number of 1 million dead is a worst-case scenario. Fair enough? As I said before; it is my opinion that Kim IL Sung would not have ordered a counter strike on Seoul because to do so would have been suicide. He wasn't much better of a human being than his devil-son, but no one ever said he was crazy (same with young Kim, btw). So, my preferred solution
what was IMHO a necessary evil, was to strike Yongbyon making certain that neither Kim would ever be able to threaten the world with Nuclear Weapons.
Had Kim proved me wrong, and attacked Seoul, soon after he and the DPRK would have ceased to exist. Instead of a monster in North Korea who threatens his brothers in South Korea
we would simply have KOREA.
By today, 10 years later, the integration of the North and South would be complete and there would have been less lives lost in the process. You heard me right... Less lives lost in the process.
According to Doctorswithoutborders.org (I'm sure we'll agree this too is a credible source): Up to three and a half million people might have died from starvation and related illnesses between 1995-1998 alone. They go on to suggest the Possible horror:
Quote:Imagine the shock we will feel if we one day discover that there are not 23 million North Koreans as the government claims, but 15 million as some former government officials hiding in China suggest.
On March 13, 1999, Agence France Presse reported 3,500,000 dead as well.
October 19th, 2000 the Guardian: 3 Million dead.
Oct 19th, 2003 the New York Times said 2Million died in preventable famine. This coincides with a US Congressional delegation's report.
South Korean intelligence has it at 3,000,000.
Only lil Kim says it was 220,000. Who do you believe? I think it's safe to assume that at least 2 to 3.5 million people died between 95 and 98. I further submit that had we attacked as I suggest we should have, this wouldn't have happened.
According to DoctorsWithoutBorders.org; all this occurred while North Korea received one of the largest allocations of food aid in the world today - almost one million tons annually. This food, mostly channeled through the UN World Food Program, supposedly targets 8 million of the most vulnerable North Koreans: school children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly and sick.
(Doctors without borders source)
kuvasz wrote: Kim and his advisors decided to pursue equipment for the purification of uranium in the late 1990's, most likely by accepting a deal with another of our great allies, the Pakistanis who had been buying missile technologies for their own nukes.
Using your timeframe
by this point Lil Kim is already responsible for MILLIONS of dead and George Bush has not yet been elected.
Furthermore; Lil Kim now has more capable missiles, more Nuclear capability and more confidence that his bad behavior will be rewarded than any terrorist should ever have. The danger we now face is worse than ever before, and he's already killed MILLIONS.
Your attempt to pass the buck onto the present administration would require Kim Jong IL to possess precognitive powers. Clinton, with help from Carter, is responsible for this mess. While Kim is responsible for the 2 to 3.5 Million already dead, those two should be having a little more trouble sleeping at night than the rest of us.
kuvasz wrote: The Bush administration's refusal to endorse the "no hostile intent" statement of the October 2000 agreement between North Korea and the United States further cemented the belief in the North Koreans that Bush administration could not be trusted not to attack them.
With all of this, and the belief that Bush administration could not be trusted not to attack them, the NKs proceeded forward with their uranium purification throughout 2001-3.
<shakes head> Millions already dead, and you think we should guarantee his security so that
maybe he'll start living up to his side of the "agreement"?
kuvasz wrote: And, there you go again, "ransom" money, as if entering negotiations with a country with a 1,000,000-man army to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons production is somehow morally equivalent to dealing with Bruno Hauptman to return the Lindbergh baby.
Why do you insist that negotiations are the same thing as appeasement?
No, morally, it is far worse than dealing with Bruno. Bruno didn't kill millions of people.
Other than not killing more people, what does Kim have to bargain with? He is already the guiltiest person alive today
I would find it unconscionable to bargain with him. This man
needs killing.
This is a shameless argument. You admitted yourself earlier:
kuvasz wrote: While uranium enrichment as such was not explicitely forbidden by the details of the 1994 framework, it was certainly and admittedly so by the spirit of the "Framework" that called for the Korean peninsula to be nuclear free
kuvasz wrote: The "multinational talks" you allude to are designed for a specific personal and domestic political reason which should have absolutely no place in international negotiations. George Bush himself was quoted in Bob Woodward's recent book, "Bush at War," as saying: "I loathe Kim Jong Il. I've got a visceral reaction to this guy, because he is starving his people. And I have seen intelligence of these prison camps...that he uses to break up families and to torture people. It appalls me."
Bush has a strong personal dislike for Kim. The question is whether he still thinks that the United States can reach a negotiated settlement with North Korea on nuclear and other issues. It does appear that his personal views have had a significant impact on the administration's willingness to negotiate, at least by the traditional definition of that term. He has no intention of direct negotiations with NK, and if he did so, he would be excoriated by the ring wing of his political party
I share Bush's disgust, for those very reasons. Honestly Kuvasz, don't you?
I believe Kim needs to be taken out, no matter what else happens
and I do not believe there is a worst case scenario where more people die by killing him than letting him live. That's how bad this guy is. 2 to 3.5 million corpses, already, and some want to deal with this murderer still? Frankly, Bush isn't playing nearly hard enough ball for my taste
and I think more people will suffer because of it. IMHO, that's the ugly truth.
The death toll has already exceeded your 1994 worst-case scenario, Kim has become more dangerous and we are no closer to a solution. I fear that Bush, like Clinton before him has already waited too long
and millions more Koreans will pay a heavy toll for it.
Do check out that piece from Doctors Without Borders
here. Also, keep an eye out for "Children of the Secret State" on TLC or Discovery Channel. Both will help you understand why Kim needs to be stopped, not dealt with.
