NORTH KOREA CONDUCTS NUCLEAR TEST

Why might one expect discussions with DPRK now would be any more fruitful than ever have they been in the past?

timberlandko, well you take the hard Bushie line. Most unreasonable. Bushie hit the ground running as a bully attacking arms control treaties and threatening to resume underground nuclear testing. He got what he sought, confrontation. Who wouldn't want a deterrent with a madman like Bushie with his hand on the button? And of course there's always been big bucks in confrontation for Bushie's arms merchant cronies. War for fun and profit is a long, tried and true Bush/Walker family enterprise.

I'll ask again: why might one expect discussions with DPRK now would be any more fruitful than ever have they been in the past?

China cancels troop leave at N.Korea border-report
By Ben Blanchard

DANDONG, China, Oct 10 (Reuters) - China has cancelled leave for troops along at least part of the border with North Korea, a mainland-controlled Hong Kong newspaper reported on Tuesday, a day after the North announced a nuclear test.

Attention timberlandko

But Hu, (Chinese President) who was feted as a friend of North Korea when he visited late last year, said there was still room for negotiations to end North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions.

full artical

timberlandko, Ask away. Clinton had created a great deal of good will with his reuniting of Korean families. A continuation in that direction would have been wise. No wonder so much of the human race and a goodly American majority say Bushie has taken us in the wrong direction. ElBaradei is one world leader who has pinpointed the nuclear problem, "The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point." Bushie lied the world into war not N.Korea or Iran. The world knows who the nuclear nut is that's for sure. Not that Bushie or his Bushies care what the rest of the world thinks.

Of all the players other than DPRK, PRC has the greatest stake in the game, and holds the high cards. So far, PRC has tabled up stern words and subtle gestures, but even that, little as it is so far, is stiffer action than has been taken in the past. A prime component of DPRK's persistent intransigence and defiance has been the absence of meaningful consequences. About the only state in any position credibly to assure DPRK of substantive consequence is PRC. Perhaps the stern words and the subtle sword rattling are PRC's method of reminding DPRK not just of on which side the bread is buttered, but also from whence comes the bread. Is this what's going on? If so (and I for believe it is), will DPRK take the hint?

Blueflame,

Even though we disagree that this adminstration is wholly to blame for DPRK obtaining and testing nuclear weapons, lets assume you are absolutely right.

How does that explain the behavior and intransigence of the DPRK between the Truman and Herbert Bush administrations? The DPRK haven't changed their style in over half a century. The Kim's threatened and lied to both Democratic and Republican administrations.

How is it useful to make political hay, rather than try to resolve a very difficult problem in such a way that the least suffering will result? What are your ideas for dealing with a major world threat? Even if the DPRK never detonates or sells a warhead, the mere threat increases the risk that events could rapidly evolve into chaos. The DPRK must not be permitted to continue its nuclear program.

******

We can only hope that the PRC will by its actions, bring the DPRK into line. The DPRK is so dependant on the PRC, that the threat of those ties actually being cut might well get Jong-Ils attention.

blueflame, no US President - or other world leader - is responsible for the Kim regime's half-century-plus history of deceit, belligerence, and disregard of human rights and international law. Kim the Elder and his heir, the current despot Kim the Younger are the ones to blame, and that's a fact. Despite giving lip service to Clinton's naive though probably well-intentioned initiatives, the Kim regime continued to pursue nuclear weaponry technology, while diverting the bulk of aid sent for the purpose of the benefit of DPRK's people to the ruling elite and the military, and participating in arms trade with other rogue states, and participating in illicit drug, currency, and human trafficking. Those aren't mere charges; apprehensions and confiscations have been made and principals with DPRK regime ties have been indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced.

Bush isn't "The Problem With North Korea" any more than was Clinton or anyone or anything other than the Kims and the Kim regime.

Now, as you've not answered the question, I'll ask yet one more time: why might one expect discussions with DPRK now would be any more fruitful than ever have they been in the past?

I must agree with those, Asherman in particular, who call into question the usefulness of trying to lay blame at the feet of any administration.

While the Clinton administration may have been too anxious to believe that they had solved the problem through enlightened negotiations, unless one believes that they actually had a military option that any other administration might have taken, I'm not sure what their wishful thinking cost us.

North Korea's people are literally starving to death so that the country can have a military that is capable of destroying at least Seoul and most of South Korea. Their conventional artillery alone can reduce the South Korean capital to rubble in a matter of hours. A US strike that could pre-empt such an attack would have to be nuclear and could not be isolated. How can any administration justify to the American people, let alone the rest of the world, that such a first strike nuclear attack was imperative?

It may very well be the case that a military conflict with North Korea is inevitable, but if it is, it is also inevitable that it will be launched by them and that our actions will be in retaliation.

China is clearly in the best position to defuse the situation, but it is by no means certain that they can. North Korean soldiers have seized Chinese aid trains! They are no more rational as respects their dealings with China than they are with any other nation. They are not about to listen to reason from China, nor are they going to roll over to threats. A NK nuke can far more easily find its way to China than the US, or even Japan.

China can possibly bring down the current regime by strangling the nation and creating the sort of desperation that can lead to revolution. Even if the Chinese are not particularly shy of the moral implications of such a move, they are not immune to the political instability and economic burden it will give rise to, and who really believes Kim Jong Il will leave the scene quietly?

The best bet for avoiding war is for the North Koreans to bend before Chinese threats of economic extortion. Sadly, that is a lousy bet.

The Bush Administration rightfully insisted on multi-lateral negotiations because it realized that China, above all nations, held the best hand and because it was made clear by the prior administrations efforts (well intentioned or otherwise) that unilateral talks with NK were worse than useless.

To suggest that calling NK a member of the Axis of Evil led them to seek nuclear weapons is breathtakingly ridiculous.

I may be unduly pessimistic, but, short of the regime collapsing from within and being, miraculously, replaced by a rational government, I don't believe anything will happen that will prevent an eventual military conflict wherein NK is the initial aggressor: passively as a supplier of nuclear weapons to terrorists, or aggressively as the launcher of a nuclear missile against Japan.

In fact I would be surprised if NK doesn't greatly expand it's belligerent rhetoric to include Japan. Japan, thanks in part to NK, is growing more nationalistic, and there many reasons why China and other Asian nations do not want to see Japan militarized (not all historical). It might suit the NK regime quite nicely to be seen (at least in their own minds) as the savior of Asia by attacking Japan.

As with Saddam, logic is a poor predictor of what Kim Jong Il will do.

Pakistan and North Korea have nuclear weapons. Iran, in all likelihood, will get them too. A nuclear event is inevitable and my prediction is that it will arrive within the next 5 to 7 years, and I would not be surprised if it were sooner.

The last time I looked, the Doomsday Clock was about seven minutes to midnight. I bet the minute hand jumped in the last couple of days.

This **** derives from SlicKKK KKKlintler and his dog-wagging ****, particularly Kosovo. THAT convinced many governments they needed nuclear weapons.

Basic reality here: The NKs have just hung a "Grand Opening" sign over their door for every lunatic terror group in the world to come buy atom bombs. There is no way we can tolerate a country whose people are starving, owning atom bombs; the most major motivation here is greed.

The very least we can get by with is a total naval blockade, and sealing the place airtight.

Accept North Korea into the nuclear club or bomb it now:

Economic sanctions will probably lead to the military action eventually or blurred later. In this case, Simon Jenkins could be correct.

timberlandko and asherman, I aint saying Bushie is responsible for anything but his own confrontational approach. He came out looking for a fight when there were other ways to proceed. He's the most threatening American President ever and of course the world is concerned with self defense against him. ElBaradei talks sense. America should be leading ther world away from nukes and confrontation. Bushie takes the opposite view. There are solutions but the first real salvo in a war on terrorism is for the American President to admit MLK was right when he said, "the greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own country". Not talking to our "enemies" is a way of ignoring that truth. It aint like terrorists and nations in opposition to us do not have very legit grievences that need to be addressed. Take the beam out of our eye before we attack the speck in other eyes.

Tico, when talked I about American embarrassment I meant that years if not decades of talking and shouting, or rather not talking, or offering inducements then threats in dealing with DPRK has finally produced the very thing it was meant to forestall. It wasnt exactly a triumph of diplomacy yesterday was it?

blueflame, as you've still not answered the question, I'll ask yet again: why might one expect discussions with DPRK now would be any more fruitful than ever have they been in the past?

timberlandko, until America changes course severely we gonna have confrontation. N.Korea and Iran have little choice but to prepare to defend themselves against the madness of American foreign policy. Pretending we have the high moral ground on this planet dont fool anyone. Certainly not those nations we beat on each day. Ignoring the war for fun and profit history of the Bushie family and their American elitist cronies is to say their constant betrayals in war manufacturing is the right way to go. It aint and those nations who have suffered under the thumbs of evil leadership installed, armed, funded and protected by America know full well who is beating on them. Have you read Ahmadinejad's letter to Bushie? He suggested that Christians, Muslims and Jews share the same religious roots and we should get back to those roots which are based on the teachings "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The Golden Rule. That is sound advice. Yet Bushie threw the letter away. The Golden Rule is a great starting point for discussion. But it's that concept that Bushie will embrace obviously. He dont even wanna talk about it.

A "triumph of diplomacy"? Of course not.

The diplomatic course failed in 1994 when the Clinton Administration attempted two-party talks and reached an "agreement" with DPRK for it to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but of course North Korea never intended to live up to its end of the bargain. What Clinton should have done (but didn't because he -- naively, one could argue -- believed DPRK deserved the benefit of the doubt that diplomacy would work) was take military action against their nuclear program. Hindsight being as clear as it is, of course.

So, what's the lesson to be learned from this? That the US failed -- and should therefore be embarassed -- because DPRK didn't abide by its promises achieved through diplomacy?

No contest Walter. I seek only clarification and enlightenment.



Congratulations, Walter. What you wrote was written nearly identically in several newspapers. I'm very pleased for you.

Now, since you are so enamored with your remark that you repeated it, I'll ask my questions again:

Are you saying Kim Jong-Il is the greater danger?

And if that's what you are saying, can you please explain why you have reached that conclusion?