Steppenwolf wrote:Brand X wrote:Steppenwolf wrote:The news isn't that they have nuclear weapons; it's that they've called off talks and taken an increasingly hard-line. Read the whole article. It's front page on NYTimes, WashPost, CNN, Foxnews, etc. That's not news?
That isn't really news either, he does this occasionally to get leverage leading up to the talks.
Brand X, if you're not interested in political discussion about the DPRK, then perhaps this thread isn't for you. I--as well as every major news outlet in America--found the DPRK's statements to be meaningful and worthy of discussion. Of course, you are free to ignore us.
Didn't say it isn't worthy of discussion, and I'm not picking on you....I just find the news very much in line with his previous ploys.
JW, I agree that we should continue to put pressure on China. They may be the only link between N. Korea and the outside world, although the China-N.Korea connection might be somewhat tenuous despite the food aid that China gives to the DPRK. As far as the cruise missiles go, that's a pretty good deterrent against a North Korean attack. However, I think are biggest concerns are: (1) Kim Jong-Il may be too irrational to understand that the U.S. holds all, or most, of the cards; (2) the North Koreans would likely sell their weapons instead of actually using them; (3) North Korea hardly has anything to lose as it is.
It would be much harder to confront the DPRK than, for instance, Iraq. This is a major policy problem that has been hounding this country for the last couple of decades, particularly in the last two administrations.
Brand X wrote:
Didn't say it isn't worthy of discussion, and I'm not picking on you....I just find the news very much in line with his previous ploys.
Fair enough, and I can't disagree on a certain level: Kim Jong-Il constantly bluffs and positions himself through threats of aggression.
If they have developed nuclear weapons, there are two questions our leaders must make to themselves: How many and How powerful. The answer determines the solution: If they have just got a few (I mean two or three) with a small attack range (the nuclear bombs should be carried by plane and then dropped to be successfully detonated)we are still able to crush them and topple that Stalinist government. A quick decapitation strike and commando raids in nuclear facilities will be enough. Without their military leaders, North Korea army will surrender as soon as we start bombarding them with rice sacks, bread, fresh fruit and Coke.
By the contrary, if they have made such aggressive remarks it is because they feel almost invulnerable. That probably involves they got an ICBM at least. We currently have no defense means, but in the case we had, Seoul and Tokyo are nevertheless definitely too near to NK to be protected. And the worldwide economic effects of a nuclear strike on those cities will be devastating. So we have no alternative to negotiation( if God damned Clinton had ordered the f
strike ten years ago
)
Let's not talk about the possibility of the North Koreans selling nuclear technology, not to an Islamic government (as the Chinese are doing now with Iran), but straight to a terrorist group. After all, Kim Jong II and Bin Laden, due to different reasons, share a common objective: destroy the US and democracy. It is nightmarish possibility, indeed, but since 9/11 the free world is realizing that nightmares can become real.
It is now on your hands, GW. A new nuclear threat is likely to be your legacy. And believe me: history is not going to judge such a legacy kindly.
Thomas Hayden wrote:Let's not talk about the possibility of the North Koreans selling nuclear technology, not to an Islamic government (as the Chinese are doing now with Iran), but straight to a terrorist group. After all, Kim Jong II and Bin Laden, due to different reasons, share a common objective: destroy the US and democracy. It is nightmarish possibility, indeed, but since 9/11 the free world is realizing that nightmares can become real.
It is now on your hands, GW. A new nuclear threat is likely to be your legacy. And believe me: history is not going to judge such a legacy kindly.
This is exactly why it was so vital to be positive that Iraq had no WMD. Had Saddam Hussein been able to some day announce that he had some form or quantity of WMD that would have conferred this kind of near invulnerability on him, the world would be in the position of impotently pleading with him to be nice, and impotently hoping for the best, as it now must do with North Korea.
What else would you expect when the idiot of the free world threatens these countries and includes them in his "axis of evil?"
Real smart...
Dookiestix wrote:What else would you expect when the idiot of the free world threatens these countries and includes them in his "axis of evil?"
Real smart...
North Korea signed a treaty pledging not to develop nukes and then undertook a secret development program under Clinton. This is just the way the world is now. The weapons are accessible, and lots of people want them. We invaded Iraq to insure that we wouldn't have to go through this or worse - WMD being used - with Hussein, and we will have to invade again in a similar circumstance.
Like I said, what would you expect when the idiot of the free world says the dumbest things on the planet, and pisses off these rogue nations on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. Now we'll have countries like Japan and South Korea starting up their nuclear programs to counter Dumbya's Axis of Evil.
Nice.
Dookiestix wrote:Like I said, what would you expect when the idiot of the free world says the dumbest things on the planet, and pisses off these rogue nations on the brink of developing nuclear weapons. Now we'll have countries like Japan and South Korea starting up their nuclear programs to counter Dumbya's Axis of Evil.
Nice.
And like I said, North Korea signed a treaty with Clinton's America pledging not to develop nuclear weapons and then did it secretly, before president Bush came along. The proliferation of WMD to smaller and less wealthy countries has been going on since I was a child. The technology is simply becoming more accessible. In the 1940s only huge powerful economies could create the technology. Now it's relatively much easier to develop. All Bush did was show the guts to back up the world's order to Iraq to disarm, because he didn't want us to someday be in the situation with Iraq that we're in now with North Korea.
Brandon, arguing with monkeys is a fruitless venture. All they can do is fling their feces until it sticks to something.
You are absolutely correct in your summation here of course.
Hold on -- hasn't the Bush Administration been negotiating the same deal as Clinton? It's amazing how some can rationalize anything this administration is doing. I wouldn't be writing about monkeys throwing feces as some of them stick and and being rationalized that they're actually delicious chocolate -- oh,yummy, yummy. I'd be writing about ostriches.
Lightwizard wrote:Hold on -- hasn't the Bush Administration been negotiating the same deal as Clinton? It's amazing how some can rationalize anything this administration is doing. I wouldn't be writing about monkeys throwing feces as some of them stick and and being rationalized that they're actually delicious chocolate -- oh,yummy, yummy. I'd be writing about ostriches.
It had been stated that the NK situation was Bush's fault by making them feel threatened. I simply pointed out that the NK's chose to begin developing nukes, in secret defiance of their treaty not to do so, before Bush came on stage. What could be simpler logic?
He isn't making this stuff happen, particularly events that happened before he assumed office. The interest by various entities in acquisition of WMD is happening now, because it's time for it to happen, in terms of where the technology is at.
Ah, yes -- blame the previous politicians clear back to the handling of Korea during Truman and Eisenhower. This administration is obviously perfect and has never made any mistakes. The truth is its diplomatic record is quite poor. Bush's job ratings today are down to 45% and the country not heading in the right direction is up to 58%. Part of that is very likely the dismay over the handlng of the proliferation of atomic WMD's and without rationalizing that other past administrations haven't done any better. So he was elected to continue the mediocrity we are becoming used to.
Lightwizard wrote:Ah, yes -- blame the previous politicians clear back to the handling of Korea during Truman and Eisenhower. This administration is obviously perfect and has never made any mistakes. The truth is its diplomatic record is quite poor. Bush's job ratings today are down to 45% and the country not heading in the right direction is up to 58%. Part of that is very likely the dismay over the handlng of the proliferation of atomic WMD's and without rationalizing that other past administrations haven't done any better. So he was elected to continue the mediocrity we are becoming used to.
That is irrelevant to anything I am discussing. A poster specifically stated that North Korea developed nukes because Bush frightened them, and I pointed out that they embarked upon it before he became president. That is really pretty clear, I think.
It doesn't discount that North Korea stayed the course of developing and stockpiling WMD's because of Bush's flawed diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't include drawing lines in the sand and saying "I dare ya." That's schoolyard diplomacy.
(BTW, is it sunny in Australia?)
(Bush's teflon coating is wearing thin).
I don't think there's any justification for layin' blame on The Current Administration's foreign policy in regard to DPRK's nuclear intransigence. Quite the contrary in fact. If anything, I'd say their stance has been structured on past perceptions of US lack of resolve. With this latest public pronouncement, it is quite possible DPRK has ratcheted things up some - just about to the same point Saddam's terminal woes kicked in.
Lightwizard wrote:It doesn't discount that North Korea stayed the course of developing and stockpiling WMD's because of Bush's flawed diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't include drawing lines in the sand and saying "I dare ya." That's schoolyard diplomacy.
Actually, he has told them not to develop WMD and offerred to participate in negotiations. If you are implying that firmness to tyrants is not sometimes the correct course of action, I must certainly disagree. I guess you are not a big fan of JFK's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Not to develop WMD's after they actually have them? Today, negotiations were rejected. I don't see any "firmness" her but an array of political ploys that are as transparant as Saran Wrap.
