Advocate wrote:Tico, first give me your view of NK having nukes, ...
They shouldn't have them and the world is a much more dangerous place now that they do.
Cause they are unstable, run by a madman, part of the axis of evil, and have a history of selling their weapons and secrets to the highest bidder.
Quote:Do you think we should immediately attack the country?
No. The cat's already out of the bag, isn't it. The military action should have been taken against the nuclear program a decade ago, as Asherman said. If we learned anything through hindsight, it is that diplomacy with Jong-Il is foolish.
But the course that was taken, and the course you seem happily content with, was to try diplomacy, and take DPRK at it's word that it would not pursue its nuclear program. The result of that course is that North Korea has nukes.
------
And now, my questions to you:
Are you content with North Korea having nukes? If so, why?
Do you agree with Walter that the world was mistaken when they assumed Iran and Iraq were more dangerous than North Korea? (I.e., do you think North Korea is "dangerous"?)
If you think North Korea is dangerous, is it more dangerous now with a nuclear weapon than when it didn't have nukes?
What do you think should have been done in the early '90s by the Clinton Administration with regard to DPRK and its nuclear program (since you disagree with Asherman's view)?
Finally, what should be done now with Iran with regard to its nuclear program?
China values the survival of Communist regime in North Korea
China still values the survival of Communist regime in North Korea
By Tim Johnson
McClatchy Newspapers
BEIJING - North Korea's nuclear test deeply rattled China because it has more at stake in the survival of the isolated Pyongyang regime than it likes to admit.
Moreover, some of those vital interests are conflicted. Their balancing places China's policymakers in a quandary as they play a pivotal role at the U.N. Security Council in deciding how to punish North Korea for its nuclear test.
China values being seen as a responsible rising power interested in shouldering global issues and maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. Its leaders also regard soaring economic ties with the United States as a vital interest.
"China doesn't want to severely hurt relations with the United States over the North Korean issue," said Shi Yinhong, an international relations specialist at People's University in Beijing.
Since 2003, when China first began hosting six-nation talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, it has won international praise. But Chinese hosts preferred to preach restraint rather than enter the fray and twist arms, and in the end they obtained little.
"China never played a real mediator role," said Jin Linbo of the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing, adding that China doesn't feel threatened by North Korea's nuclear program.
"I don't think Chinese leaders believe North Korea's nuclear weapons will immediately affect China's national interests," he said.
At the same time, as China's leaders frequently point out, they need peace abroad so that they can focus on economic growth and reforms and sort out a myriad of domestic problems, such as widening disparities of income and tattered social safety nets.
China also does not want to face the possible collapse of the Kim Jong Il regime and the need to explain to China's citizens the failure of an allied one-party state like its own, scholars say.
"If the regime (in Pyongyang) collapses, that could be a big shock to the Chinese system," said Wu Guoguang, a former editorial writer for the People's Daily who is now a political scientist at the University of Victoria in Canada's British Columbia.
It took China's leaders years after the collapse of the Soviet empire in the early 1990s to rebuild confidence in the Communist Party and tell people, "Look, the party survived. Communism is okay," Wu said.
China has a historic friendship with North Korea, tempered by the spilled blood of hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops during the 1950-1953 Korean War. China's older generation strongly supports North Korea, a historic if troublesome ally, and prefers a divided peninsula to a reunified, more powerful Korea on its borders.
Moreover, say analysts, Pyongyang plays a strategic role for Beijing.
Kim Jong Il's million-man army occupies the attention of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula, and could rattle the cage and divert the Pentagon if Beijing ever were to deploy troops in a blitz attack on Taiwan, a self-governed island it claims as its own.
"Taiwan is a priority for Beijing," said Wu, noting that China's leaders routinely believe that if they bend to Washington on the North Korea issue, it gives them leverage on Taiwan.
Even so, there is no denying Beijing's real frustration at Pyongyang for what it sees as a reckless escalation of tensions, reflected in its angry denunciation Monday of the "brazen" nuclear test and its willingness to support punitive U.N. sanctions.
China knows that a nuclear-armed North Korea deeply unsettles Japan and could spark an arms race in East Asia. It also raises the possibility of an eventual U.S. limited military strike on North Korea, making Kim's future less certain.
"The present situation is quite dangerous. North Korea faces more and more isolation," Shi said. "The possibility of collapse has increased."
China maintains leverage on Pyongyang by supplying more than half of its vital energy supplies, yet it believes it affects events in North Korea less than ever, Shi said.
"China's relations with North Korea already are at the lowest point in many years, and influence is at the lowest level," he said.
While China's leaders juggle differing concerns, they also keep an eye on the public mood. Chinese are at once unhappy with Kim for embarrassing their nation and deeply averse to kowtowing to Washington's demands to punish Pyongyang.
China is most likely to want to deal with the crisis like a family dispute, chastising North Korea in public but stopping short of inflicting real pain, Wu said.
"You want to punish your brother but you want to maintain the brotherhood," he said.
Moon, North Korea & the Bushes
Moon, North Korea & the Bushes
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
Originally published on 11 October 2000
Given the nuclear crisis involving North Korea, we are republishing, with minor revisions, this six-year-old article about millions of dollars allegedly funneled from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon - The Washington Times founder and a Bush family financial backer - to leaders of North Korea's communist dictatorship in the 1990s.
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's business empire, which includes the right-wing Washington Times, paid millions of dollars to North Korea's communist leaders in the early 1990s when the hard-line government needed foreign currency to finance its weapons programs, according to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency documents.
The payments included a $3 million "birthday present" to current communist leader Kim Jong Il and offshore payments amounting to "several tens of million dollars" to the previous communist dictator, Kim Il Sung, the documents said.
Moon apparently was seeking a business foothold in North Korea, but the transactions also raised potential legal questions for Moon, who appears to have defied U.S. embargos on trade and financial relations with the Pyongyang government. Those legal questions were never pursued, however, apparently because of Moon's powerful political connections within the Republican power structure of Washington, including financial and political ties to the Bush family.
Besides making alleged payments to North Korea's communist leaders, the 86-year-old founder of the South Korean-based Unification Church has funneled large sums of money, possibly millions of dollars, to former President George H.W. Bush.
One well-placed former leader of Moon's Unification Church told me that the total earmarked for former President Bush was $10 million. The father of the current U.S. President has declined to say how much Moon's organization actually paid him for speeches and other services in Asia, the United States and South America.
At one Moon-sponsored speech in Argentina in 1996, Bush declared, "I want to salute Reverend Moon," whom Bush praised as "the man with the vision."
Bush made these speeches at a time when Moon was expressing intensely anti-American views. In his own speeches, Moon termed the United States "Satan's harvest" and claimed that American women descended from a "line of prostitutes."
During the pivotal presidential campaign in 2000, Moon's Washington Times alsoattacked the Clinton-Gore administration for failing to take more aggressive steps to block North Korea's military research and development. The newspaper called the Clinton-Gore administration's decisions an "abdication of responsibility for national security."
A Helping Hand
Yet, in the 1990s when North Korea was scrambling for the resources to develop missiles and nuclear technology, Moon was among a small group of outside businessmen quietly investing in North Korea.
Moon's activities attracted the attention of the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is responsible for monitoring potential military threats to the United States.
Though historically an ardent anticommunist, Moon negotiated a business deal in 1991 with Kim Il Sung, the longtime communist leader, the DIA documents said.
The deal called for construction of a hotel complex in Pyongyang as well as a new Holy Land at the site of Moon's birth in North Korea, one document said. The DIA said the deal sprang from face-to-face negotiations between Moon and Kim Il Sung in North Korea from Nov. 30 to Dec. 8, 1991.
"These talks took place secretly, without the knowledge of the South Korean government," the DIA wrote on Feb. 2, 1994. "In the original deal with Kim [Il Sung], Moon paid several tens of million dollars as a down-payment into an overseas account," the DIA said in a cable dated Aug. 14, 1994.
The DIA said Moon's organization also delivered money to Kim Il Sung's son and successor, Kim Jong Il.
"In 1993, the Unification Church sold a piece of property located in Pennsylvania," the DIA reported on Sept. 9, 1994. "The profit on the sale, approximately $3 million was sent through a bank in China to the Hong Kong branch of the KS [South Korean] company 'Samsung Group.' The money was later presented to Kim Jung Il [Kim Jong Il] as a birthday present."
After Kim Il Sung's death in 1994 and his succession by his son, Kim Jong Il, Moon dispatched his longtime aide, Bo Hi Pak, to ensure that the business deals were still on track with Kim Jong Il "and his coterie," the DIA reported.
"If necessary, Moon authorized Pak to deposit a second payment for Kim Jong Il," the DIA wrote.
The DIA declined to elaborate on the documents that it released to me under a Freedom of Information Act request in 2000. "As for the documents you have, you have to draw your own conclusions," said DIA spokesman, U.S. Navy Capt. Michael Stainbrook.
Moon's Right-Hand Man
Contacted in Seoul, South Korea, in fall 2000, Bo Hi Pak, a former publisher of The Washington Times, denied that payments were made to individual North Korean leaders and called "absolutely untrue" the DIA's description of the $3 million land sale benefiting Kim Jong Il.
But Bo Hi Pak acknowledged that Moon met with North Korean officials and negotiated business deals with them in the early 1990s. Pak said the North Korean business investments were structured through South Korean entities.
"Rev. Moon is not doing this in his own name," said Pak.
Pak said he went to North Korea in 1994, after Kim Il Sung's death, only to express "condolences" to Kim Jong Il on behalf of Moon and his wife. Pak denied that another purpose of the trip was to pass money to Kim Jong Il or to his associates.
Asked about the seeming contradiction between Moon's avowed anti-communism and his friendship with leaders of a communist state, Pak said, "This is time for reconciliation. We're not looking at ideological differences. We are trying to help them out" with food and other humanitarian needs.
Samsung officials said they could find no information in their files about the alleged $3 million payment.
North Korean officials clearly valued their relationship with Moon. In February of 2000, on Moon's 80th birthday, Kim Jong Il sent Moon a gift of rare wild ginseng, an aromatic root used medicinally, Reuters reported.
Legal Issues
Because of the long-term U.S. embargo against North Korea, Moon's alleged payments to the communist leaders raised potential legal issues for Moon, a South Korean citizen who is a U.S. permanent resident alien.
"Nobody in the United States was supposed to be providing funding to anybody in North Korea, period, under the Treasury (Department's) sanction regime," said Jonathan Winer, former deputy assistant secretary of state handling international crime.
The U.S. embargo of North Korea dates back to the Korean War. With a few exceptions for humanitarian goods, the embargo barred trade and financial dealings between North Korea and "all U.S. citizens and permanent residents wherever they are located, ... and all branches, subsidiaries and controlled affiliates of U.S. organizations throughout the world."
Moon became a permanent resident of the United States in 1973, according to Justice Department records. Bo Hi Pak said Moon has kept his "green card" status. Though often in South Korea and South America, Moon maintained a residence near Tarrytown, north of New York City, and controls dozens of affiliated U.S. companies.
Direct payments to foreign leaders in connection with business deals also could have prompted questions about possible violations of the U.S. Corrupt Practices Act, a prohibition against overseas bribery.
(But in the six years since we disclosed the Moon-North Korean payments, George W. Bush's administration has taken no legal action against Moon. Meanwhile, Moon's Washington Times has been one of Bush's most consistent and aggressive backers in the U.S. news media.)
Alleged Brainwashing
Moon's followers regard him as the second Messiah and grant him broad power over their lives, even letting him pick their spouses. Critics, including ex-Unification Church members, have accused Moon of brainwashing young recruits and living extravagantly while his followers have little.
Around the world, Moon's business relationships long have been cloaked in secrecy. His sources of money have been mysteries, too, although witnesses - including his former daughter-in-law - have come forward in recent years and alleged criminal money-laundering within the organization.
Moon "demonstrated contempt for U.S. law every time he accepted a paper bag full of untraceable, undeclared cash collected from true believers" who carried the money in from overseas, wrote his ex-daughter-in-law, Nansook Hong, in her 1998 book, In the Shadows of the Moons.
Since Moon stepped onto the international stage in the 1970s, he has used his fortune to build political alliances and to finance media, academic and political institutions.
In 1978, Moon was identified by the congressional "Koreagate" investigation as an operative of the South Korean CIA and part of an influence-buying scheme aimed at the U.S. government. Moon denied the charges.
Though Moon later was convicted on federal tax evasion charges, his political influence continued to grow when he founded The Washington Times in 1982. The unabashedly right-wing newspaper won favor with presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush by backing their policies and hammering their opponents.
In 1988, when then-Vice President Bush was trailing early in the presidential race, the Times spread a baseless rumor that the Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis had undergone psychiatric treatment. The Moon-affiliated American Freedom Coalition also distributed millions of pro-Bush flyers.
The elder George Bush personally expressed his gratitude. When Wesley Pruden was appointed The Washington Times' editor-in-chief in 1991, Bush invited Pruden to a private White House lunch "just to tell you how valuable the Times has become in Washington, where we read it every day." [Washington Times, May 17, 1992].
Moon's Vatican
While Bush was hosting Pruden in the White House, Pruden's boss was opening his financial and business channels to North Korea. According to the DIA, Moon's North Korean deal was ambitious and expensive.
"There was an agreement regarding economic cooperation for the reconstruction of KN's [North Korea's] economy which included establishment of a joint venture to develop tourism at Kimkangsan, KN [North Korea]; investment in the Tumangang River Development; and investment to construct the light industry base at Wonsan, KN. It is believed that during their meeting Mun [Moon] donated 450 billion yen to KN," one DIA report said.
In late 1991, the Japanese yen traded at about 130 yen to the U.S. dollar, meaning Moon's investment would have been about $3.5 billion, if the DIA information is correct.
Moon's aide Pak denied that Moon's investments ever approached that size. Though Pak did not give an overall figure, he said the initial phase of an automobile factory was in the range of $3 million to $6 million.
The DIA depicted Moon's business plans in North Korea as much grander. The DIA valued the agreement for hotels in Pyongyang and the resort in Kumgang-san, alone, at $500 million. The plans also called for creation of a kind of Vatican City covering Moon's birthplace.
"In consideration of Mun's [Moon's] economic cooperation, Kim [Il Sung] granted Mun a 99-year lease on a 9 square kilometer parcel of land located in Chongchu, Pyonganpukto, KN. Chongchu is Mun's birthplace and the property will be used as a center for the Unification Church. It is being referred to as the Holy Land by Unification Church believers and Mun [h]as been granted extraterritoriality during the life of the lease."
North Korea granted Moon some smaller favors, too. Four months after Moon's meeting with Kim Il Sung, editors from The Washington Times were allowed to interview the reclusive North Korean communist leader in what the Times called "the first interview he has granted to an American newspaper in many years."
Later in 1992, the Times was again rallying to President George H.W. Bush's defense. The newspaper stepped up attacks against Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh as his investigation homed in on Bush and his inner circle. Walsh considered the Times' relentless criticism a distraction to the criminal investigation, according to his book, Firewall.
That fall, in the 1992 campaign, the Times turned its editorial guns on Bush's new rival, Bill Clinton. Some of the anti-Clinton articles raised questions about Clinton's patriotism, even suggesting that the Rhodes scholar might have been recruited as a KGB agent during a collegiate trip to Moscow.
A Bush Salute
George H.W. Bush's loss of the White House did not end his relationship with Moon's organization. Out of office, Bush agreed to give paid speeches to Moon-supported groups in the United States, Asia and South America. In some cases, Barbara Bush joined in the events.
During this period, Moon grew increasingly hateful about the United States and many of its ideals.
In a speech to his followers on Aug. 4, 1996, Moon vowed to liquidate American individuality, declaring that his movement would "swallow entire America." Moon said Americans who insisted on "their privacy and extreme individualism ... will be digested."
Nevertheless, former President Bush continued to work for Moon's organization. In November 1996, the former U.S. President spoke at a dinner in Buenos Aires, Argentina, launching Moon's South American newspaper, Tiempos del Mundo.
"I want to salute Reverend Moon," Bush declared, according to a transcript of the speech published in The Unification News, an internal church newsletter.
"A lot of my friends in South America don't know about The Washington Times, but it is an independent voice," Bush said. "The editors of The Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C."
Contrary to Bush's claim, a number of senior editors and correspondents have resigned in protest of editorial interference from Moon's operatives. Bush has refused to say how much he was paid for the speech in Buenos Aires or others in Asia and the United States.
Going After Gore
During the 2000 election cycle, Moon's newspaper took up the cause of Bush's son and mounted harsh attacks against his rival, Vice President Al Gore.
In 1999, the Times played a prominent role in promoting a bogus quote attributed to Gore about his work on the toxic waste issue. In a speech in Concord, N.H., Gore had referred to a toxic waste case in Toone, Tennessee, and said, "that was the one that started it all."
The New York Times and The Washington Post garbled the quote, claiming that Gore had said, "I was the one that started it all."
The Washington Times took over from there, accusing Gore of being clinically "delusional." The Times called the Vice President "a politician who not only manufactures gross, obvious lies about himself and his achievements but appears to actually believe these confabulations." [Washington Times, Dec. 7, 1999]
Even after other papers corrected the false quote, The Washington Times continued to use it. The notion of Gore as an exaggerator, often based on this and other mis-reported incidents, became a powerful Republican "theme" as Texas Gov. Bush surged ahead of Gore in the presidential preference polls.
"Abdication"
Republicans also made the North Korean threat an issue against the Clinton-Gore administration. In 1999, a report by a House Republican task force warned that during the 1990s, North Korea and its missile program emerged as a nuclear threat to Japan and possibly the Pacific Northwest of the United States.
"This threat has advanced considerably over the past five years, particularly with the enhancement of North Korea's missile capabilities," the Republican task force said. "Unlike five years ago, North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons."
Moon's newspaper joined in excoriating the Clinton-Gore administration for postponing a U.S. missile defense system to counter missiles from North Korea and other "rogue states." Gov. Bush favored such a system.
"To its list of missed opportunities, the Clinton-Gore administration can now add the abdication of responsibility for national security," a Times editorial said.
"By deciding not to begin construction of the Alaskan radar, Mr. Clinton has indisputably delayed eventual deployment beyond 2005, when North Korea is estimated to be capable of launching an intercontinental missile against the United States." [Washington Times, Sept. 5, 2000]
The Washington Times did not note that its founder - who has continued to subsidize the newspaper with tens of millions of dollars a year - had defied a U.S. trade embargo aimed at containing the military ambitions of North Korea.
By supplying money at a time when North Korea was desperate for hard currency, Moon helped deliver the means for the communist state to advance exactly the strategic threat that Moon's newspaper chastised the Clinton-Gore administration for failing to thwart.
That money bought Moon influence inside North Korea. The Korean theocrat also appears to have secured crucial protection from George W. Bush's administration, after investing wisely for many years in the President's family.
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty From Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at "Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
Tico asks:
Are you content with North Korea having nukes? If so, why? I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH THE COUNTRY AT THIS POINT. OUTSIDE OF ITS INVASION OF SK, WHICH IT CONSIDERED PART OF A GENERIC KOREA, NK NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER COUNTRY. (YOU CAN'T SAY THIS ABOUT THE USA.) JUST LIKE IRAN, WHICH IS DEVELOPING NUKES, BUSH INCLUDED NK IN THE AXIS OF EVIL, AND TALKED OF PREEMPTIVE ATTACKS. THIS WOULD DRIVE ANY COUNTRY TO TAKE PROTECTIVE STEPS. NK IS A CRIMINAL COUNTRY, BUT IT COULD EASILY WIPE OUT MOST OF OUR TROOPS IN SK, DESTROY THE SK CAPITOL, AND KILL OVER A MILLION PEOPLE. NK KNOWS THAT IT WOULD BE A CINDER WERE IT TO USE A NUKE ON ANOTHER COUNTRY. WHY ATTACK NK IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Do you agree with Walter that the world was mistaken when they assumed Iran and Iraq were more dangerous than North Korea? (I.e., do you think North Korea is "dangerous"?) WHO SAID THAT THE WORLD ASSUMED IRAN AND IRAQ WERE MORE DANGEROUS? WAS THERE A POLL OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD?
If you think North Korea is dangerous, is it more dangerous now with a nuclear weapon than when it didn't have nukes? YES.
What do you think should have been done in the early '90s by the Clinton Administration with regard to DPRK and its nuclear program (since you disagree with Asherman's view)? C'S ADMINISTRATION DID A GREAT JOB IN CONTAINING NK'S NUKE PROGRAM. ITS FACILITIES WERE PADLOCKED, AND ITS RESEARCH SLOWED. NK EVEN GAVE UP RODS. IN THE ABSENCE OF C'S ACTIONS, NK WOULD NOW HAVE ABOUT 100 WEAPONS INSTEAD OF THE SIX OR SO IT NOW HAS.
Finally, what should be done now with Iran with regard to its nuclear program? FIRST GIVE ME YOUR DETAILED VIEWS ON THIS. YOU SHOULD BE WILLING TO ANSWER WHAT YOU ASK.
Since so many people (including Bush) seem to be blaming Clinton for failed policy with North Korea could anyone tell us how Bush's policy has worked better?
(This question was asked of Bush by a reporter. He didn't give a reasonable answer.)
Advocate wrote:Tico asks:
Are you content with North Korea having nukes? If so, why? I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO TO WAR WITH THE COUNTRY AT THIS POINT. OUTSIDE OF ITS INVASION OF SK, WHICH IT CONSIDERED PART OF A GENERIC KOREA, NK NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER COUNTRY. (YOU CAN'T SAY THIS ABOUT THE USA.) JUST LIKE IRAN, WHICH IS DEVELOPING NUKES, BUSH INCLUDED NK IN THE AXIS OF EVIL, AND TALKED OF PREEMPTIVE ATTACKS. THIS WOULD DRIVE ANY COUNTRY TO TAKE PROTECTIVE STEPS. NK IS A CRIMINAL COUNTRY, BUT IT COULD EASILY WIPE OUT MOST OF OUR TROOPS IN SK, DESTROY THE SK CAPITOL, AND KILL OVER A MILLION PEOPLE. NK KNOWS THAT IT WOULD BE A CINDER WERE IT TO USE A NUKE ON ANOTHER COUNTRY. WHY ATTACK NK IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Who is advocating attacking NK at this point?
Quote:Do you agree with Walter that the world was mistaken when they assumed Iran and Iraq were more dangerous than North Korea? (I.e., do you think North Korea is "dangerous"?) WHO SAID THAT THE WORLD ASSUMED IRAN AND IRAQ WERE MORE DANGEROUS? WAS THERE A POLL OF EVERYONE IN THE WORLD?
Walter Hinteler (duh) said it earlier in this thread when he said: "
The world had long been concerned about the intentions of paranoid dictator Kim Jong-Il but had mistakenly reckoned Iraq and Iran to be the greater danger." ....
LINK.
(He liked saying it so much, he said it again ....
HERE.)
So, do you agree or disagree with Walter?
Quote:If you think North Korea is dangerous, is it more dangerous now with a nuclear weapon than when it didn't have nukes? YES.
So do I.
Quote:What do you think should have been done in the early '90s by the Clinton Administration with regard to DPRK and its nuclear program (since you disagree with Asherman's view)? C'S ADMINISTRATION DID A GREAT JOB IN CONTAINING NK'S NUKE PROGRAM. ITS FACILITIES WERE PADLOCKED, AND ITS RESEARCH SLOWED. NK EVEN GAVE UP RODS. IN THE ABSENCE OF C'S ACTIONS, NK WOULD NOW HAVE ABOUT 100 WEAPONS INSTEAD OF THE SIX OR SO IT NOW HAS.
Clinton's Administrtion did "A GREAT JOB IN CONTAINING NK'S NUKE PROGRAM"??????
In what way did Clinton's Administration do a "great job" in containing the program? What facts do you have to support your contention that it did a "great job"? What facts do you have to support your contention that in the absence of the "Agreed Framework," NK would have 100 nukes?
No, Clinton did little to contain the NK nuclear program, because he foolishly believed negotiations with NK were possible. The Clinton approach was an abject failure.
Quote:Finally, what should be done now with Iran with regard to its nuclear program? FIRST GIVE ME YOUR DETAILED VIEWS ON THIS. YOU SHOULD BE WILLING TO ANSWER WHAT YOU ASK.
No, I've given my detailed views on this subject on other threads, and I've demonstrated my willingness to answer questions posed of me. You, on the other hand, have not. Frankly, I'm surprised you answered at all. I'm not surprised at the content of your answers, of course.
It's clear to me that you believe the Bush Administration should simply mirror the "great job" done by the Clinton Administration with DPRK, and engage in two-party diplomacy with Iran, then look the other way while Iran weaponizes its nuclear program. And then, a few years down the road when Iran conducts its first nuclear bomb test, you will look back and marvel at the "great job" the Bush Administration did in containing the Iran nuclear program.
Unbelievable.
parados wrote:Since so many people (including Bush) seem to be blaming Clinton for failed policy with North Korea could anyone tell us how Bush's policy has worked better?
(This question was asked of Bush by a reporter. He didn't give a reasonable answer.)
Bush's policy has not yet played itself out. However, I do agree with his framework that no bilateral discussions should take place. That was Clintons policy and as we see today it has failed.
Bush is correct to get the region involved as it really is Japans, S. Korea, China and Russia problem that they now have a nuclear neighbor.
However, I would like to see Bush either remove the 40K troops we have there or move part of the PAcific fleet in a better position to defend them and show some presence in the area.
Bottom line here is we still do not know if NK can actually deploy a nuke in a missle. So far all we hear is rhetoric from these little scoundrals. Maybe we should force their hand by moving the fleet in position
It would be a good thing for folks to go back and read the link provided by Satt sf on the last page. This is an unusually good, and thoughtful link. The author makes, almost as an aside, a rational supporting Clinton's last moment stand-down. I still believe Clinton took the wrong course, but have to admit there is some justification for his decision beyond being hoodwinked by Jong-Il. If every link were as insightful as this one, and provided additional food for thought, I'm sure I would take the trouble to read more of them. Good analysis, good Show!
Tico, so you feel that Walter speaks for the world. Wow!!!
I gave you facts regarding Clinton's accomplishments with respect to NK, which you didn't refute.
You still haven't given your opinion on what to do about Iran. BTW, I don't read every post inserted in A2K. Do you?
I gather that you find Coulter's views on history, etc., very astute. This says a lot about you.
Ticomaya wrote:
But the course that was taken, and the course you seem happily content with, was to try diplomacy, and take DPRK at it's word that it would not pursue its nuclear program. The result of that course is that North Korea has nukes.
much to American embarrassment as I was saying before.
Asherman wrote:It would be a good thing for folks to go back and read the link provided by Satt sf on the last page. This is an unusually good, and thoughtful link. The author makes, almost as an aside, a rational supporting Clinton's last moment stand-down. I still believe Clinton took the wrong course, but have to admit there is some justification for his decision beyond being hoodwinked by Jong-Il. If every link were as insightful as this one, and provided additional food for thought, I'm sure I would take the trouble to read more of them. Good analysis, good Show!
The mistake you're making is in thinking that KKKlinton ever had any sort of normal motivations about anything. The ONLY calculus or motivation there ever was in ANY decision that lunatic ever made about anything was "What's in it for me?", which could be political capital, drugs, money, some north korean pu***, or any sort of thing at all, but there is zero possibility of any of the kinds of calculations you'd like to imagine going on in the guy's head ever having taken place. Psychopaths minds don't work like that.
Get yourself a copy of Robert Hare's "Without Conscience".
Quote:psy·cho·path
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
takes one to know one snake
Ticomaya wrote:candidone1 wrote:Asherman wrote:The threat to world peace posed by a continuation of the Kim Dynasty will not go away by talking with them. Jong-Il, like his father, believes that diplomacy is basically for weak-willed whimps. At best, diplomacy is a temporary condition that will last only until the DPRK is ready to up the stakes again.
I could substitute a few names here to elucidate the problem.
But I think you may see my point.
I'm afraid not. But I'd like to see you do your best to explain.
The threat to world peace posed by a continuation of the Bush dynasty will not go away by talking to them. George W, like his father, believes that diplomacy is basically for weak-willed wimps........
Bush is dealing with an individual not unlike himself.
candidone1 wrote:Ticomaya wrote:candidone1 wrote:Asherman wrote:The threat to world peace posed by a continuation of the Kim Dynasty will not go away by talking with them. Jong-Il, like his father, believes that diplomacy is basically for weak-willed whimps. At best, diplomacy is a temporary condition that will last only until the DPRK is ready to up the stakes again.
I could substitute a few names here to elucidate the problem.
But I think you may see my point.
I'm afraid not. But I'd like to see you do your best to explain.
...George W, like his father, believes that diplomacy is basically for weak-willed wimps..........
He doesn't believe that diplomacy should be continued year after year despite insufficient results, a real danger, and a possibly finite window of opportunity to act. He recognizes that it's hard to negotiate with liars. He doesn't believe that every threat of serious consequences should be back up only by a subsequent threat of serious consequences ad inifinitum.
Now, Gungasnake, thats just the sort of hysterical over-the-top rant that we hear from the left and liberal Democrats. It has, and will continue to hurt their cause as long as they continue demonizing a President of the opposition Party. For us Republicans, Clinton wasn't a good President for the nation, but he wasn't a "lunatic", nor did he knowingly put the nation in danger. Corruption and moral turpitude have always existed in politics, in every Party, and every time. Clinton was probably no better, nor worse than most Presidents. I think power went to his head and made some really bad choices, but that isn't unusual either.
Presidents are just human beings like all of us, and they have a full complement of strengths and weaknesses. This country has been extraordinarily fortunate in its Chief Executives throughout its political history. I have yet to find any President so bad that nothing good can be said of them. The GOP will be wearing Nixon around our necks like an albatross forever, yet even he made some important contributions to the nation and its place in the world. Clinton was far from the worst Democratic President. If you want to overlook the tragedy of LBJ, try Pierce, Wilson, or even that lovable Grover Cleveland. Give Clinton some credit, he earned it just by serving in the most difficult position in the world ... and, of course, he was married to Hillary.
I've been very pleased to see that Clinton has by and large taken a higher road since leaving office than almost any of his supporters or erstwhile successors.
Quote:This country has been extraordinarily fortunate in its Chief Executives throughout its political history.
oh that the rest of the world could say that
here is part of what secretary albright had to say about her meeting in the year 2000 with Kim Jong Il of north-korea .
imo it might be worthwhile to know what has been said in the past about Kim Jong Il ; perhaps it leads to a better understanding of today's situation .
hbg
(from the interview with PBS )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October of 2000, you go to Pyongyang. We know that you're there to try to get them to put away their missile program, to stop making their long-range missiles. What is Kim Jong Il up to, in your opinion?
Well, I think at that stage he wanted very much to have a relationship with the United States. The purpose, I think, generally, of his policy was to get some recognition from the United States that North Korea existed, that we should have diplomatic relations. So he was really quite open, in discussions that we had, in terms of limiting his missile program, and it was very evident that what he wanted to do was to be involved in a negotiation, which would lead to a meeting with President Clinton that would result in a better relationship.
If he's willing to give away his missile program, why does he embark on that in the first place?
Well, I think that the whole issue probably goes back to the end of the Cold War, where he had lived under the patronage and with the support of the Soviet Union and China. Then all of a sudden the Soviet Union, his major patron, disintegrates, and the question is what is the status of North Korea, in itself, in the world, which explains, I think, a lot of what happened from '93, '94 on.
What I think he wanted to do was to establish himself as a leader on the world stage, and the only way he could do it was by developing various aspects of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, and to have some kind of missile projection, because that's their only cash crop.
It is an economy that doesn't work, but they do manage somehow to figure out how to build various high-tech missile components.
And sell them to people like the Yemenis or the Syrians or--
There are a lot of people out there who want various weapons, and this is what they sell. That's why the situation is so dangerous.
Is he delusional?
I don't think he's delusional. I've thought a lot about this, and I obviously prepared a lot before I went there. I talked with Kim Dae Jung, president of South Korea, who had been there and met with him.
For the most part, we had very peculiar information about Kim Jong Il that he was a recluse. I think delusional actually was a word that was used. But Kim Dae Jung had reported that it was possible to have perfectly decent, rational conversations with him.
For me, the situation was that here is a person who is isolated, but not uninformed, who has operated in his own system where he is deified and, at the same time, wants to be in the outside world where nobody will pay any attention to him.
So I can't imagine what it is like to be raised in a society where their only statues that exist are to you and your father.
and some more from the interview :
The hawks, people like Richard Perle, will say you cannot negotiate. You shouldn't talk to people like Kim Jong Il. You can't negotiate with them, that essentially it's appeasement.
I completely disagree, because I believe that it is essential to see whether there's a way to have some agreements. We talked to Stalin, we talked to Mao, we talked to Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. We made agreements.
...INTERVIEW WITH SECRETARY ALBRIGHT...
Steve,
Personally I don't give a rats ass what other countries think, so long as our nation is safe, secure, strong and still holds the Constitution above all. What I care about is that Americans get the government they want. You lot think the American People want to surrender to those who threaten us, the GOP stands for not compromising any more with our enemies than necessary. You seem to want the President to be nothing more than a figurehead driven by popular polls, the GOP is staunchly in favor of maintaining the only polls that count. The GOP represents American values above all, and our partisan counterparts seem to prefer supporting the views of everyone, but Americans.
Keep up the good work, and it'll be a long, long stretch between waterholes.
Secretary Albright wasn't the first, or the only person who have misjudged the Kim Dynasty. She and Bill Richardson were misled, and probably their wishful hopes for diplomacy overruled the clear evidence that they were being deceived.
