| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: North Korea's Nuclear Test Posted by: Boxman - [427471614] Wed, Oct 04, 2006, 13:13 Renewed Activity Seen at Suspected North Korea Test Sites If they go forward with this, what should be done? Wouldn't going nuclear finally cross some sort of line that would demand international action or would we revert this back to a UN committee of some sort for review until the next time this guy does something stupid? Now is the time that Japan and South Korea should be allowed to defend themselves. Let them acquire nuclear technology from us so if/when Kim Jong Il presses the button they can at least fire back. | |||||||
| 30 | Perm Dude ID: 4193597 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 16:53 |
No. I'm calling you out for #18. And for the re-use of the same graphic. You and boikin tag-teaming on the "no one has a plan" song and dance, yet I spelled one out for you just a few weeks ago. There is a place for you on the Republican Leadership Council. The job of "Mindless Naysayer" is open. Unlike some, I don't feel the need to re-post the same arguments (or graphics) into each thread on a topic. | ||||||
| 31 | boikin ID: 59831214 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 16:59 | PD good job, sorry since you do not believe in reposting and since some people me included do not read everything and certainly do not remeber everything, I did not know that you had a plan. Though in general most times people here are all about the ridicule and not about posting of ideas. | ||||||
| 32 | Boxman ID: 427471614 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:03 | So one Democrat has a plan? One? On a forum full of them. There is one Democrat with one plan. We're screwed. | ||||||
| 33 | Tree ID: 1411442914 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:13 |
don't see your republican brothers and sisters run to this board with plans either. then again considering the blazing trail of stupidity you've set with your "plan", they might be keeping quiet. | ||||||
| 34 | Perm Dude ID: 4193597 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:13 |
Yeah. Finding other plans might involve research other than on a fantasy sports forum. We certainly are screwed if political discourse has been limited to not bothering to look at one of the hundreds of websites which spell out plans from the Dems. | ||||||
| 35 | soxzeitgeist ID: 188312511 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:19 |
As usual, the real answers lie somewhere between boxmans simplistic, foolish and losing proposition to "arm North Korea's neighbors with nukes so they can shoot back", Matt S inevitable criticism of the US, and tree's tirade against King George II. Simply put, a nuclear North Korea is a full blown crisis. Iraq and Afghanistan are relegated to the position of being merely serious challenges when compared to the spectre of a country that has a broken economy set against the background of paranoid leadership and nuclear waepons, or at least the possibility of a growing nuclear arsenal. Boxmans idea is asinine on the face of it, but even delving deeper than that, Pyongyang is too close to Seoul to for any armed forces to engage in "premptive" actions, a la Iraq. What's more, major military operations in another theater are far beyond our abilities at this point. Short of reinstating a draft, there's simply not enough bodies. I know that puts me squarely in the "defeatocrats" camp for our more muscular (and muscleheaded) posters, but that's reality. We have an obligation (regardless of what some think) to try to defuse the situation. Charges of US hegemony aside, this is one place where we really can - and should - be efforting to make a difference. Patient, small diplomacy will take too long given the speed with which the situation will most likely escalate. We need to think BIG and do more. This means offering more to North Korea, and demanding more in return. We have to make our demands with an understanding that the biggest underlying issue is NK's failed economy. Only a combination of carrots and sticks can induce Kim Jong Il to transform his country, and unfortunately we're at a point where each side seems to be more concerned with waiting out the other so as not to seem "weak". I'm not sure when or why compromise became a bad word in US politics, but it's time to put that idea aside and step up to the negotiating table. In doing so, our regional partners and China could easily be induced to participate, also convieniently restoring some of our lost reputation as a world power who leads from the moral high ground. China and Vietnam have both taken halting steps to engage the rest of the world, there's no reason we couldn't expect North Korea to with the right package of inducements. But it will take a "Nixon goes to China" moment on the part of this administration to do it. The question is, do we have anyone man (or woman) enough to suggest it. | ||||||
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:20 |
Boxman The point of America's NK policy for the past decade has been to prevent NK from acquiring and building nuclear weapons. Through this time, Democrats have openly favored re-establishing direct negotiations with NK, knowing all along that time was running out. Regardless of whether you think it pointless to say so at this point, there is no denying that President Bush's policy of 6 party talks, hardline diplomacy and aggressive rhetoric has failed at this crucial endeavor, leaving us with few remaining options in a now completely changed game. So few options in fact that you have no solution to offer, either. Your "plan" is a concession of failure. It conceeds that we are exactly where we didn't want to be, dependant on the sanity of Kim Jong Il. Is it really so inapropriate to look at such a bleak prognosis and recount how we got into this mess? No matter how you shake it out, the survival of major world cities will depend on the descretion of Kim Jong Il. That is the new problem. Any ideas for how to fix it? I didn't think so. | ||||||
| 37 | boikin ID: 59831214 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:23 | ignore it to his people starve to death then he will have no followers to lead. | ||||||
| 38 | Perm Dude ID: 4193597 Mon, Oct 09, 2006, 17:39 | It really is sad that some of the biggest dictators in the world (in NKA, Burma, etc) have starvation as a hallmark. | ||||||
| 39 | zalds ID: 57952105 Tue, Oct 10, 2006, 07:53 | in my country thier been some military movement and some of our navy r in full alert i think this is going to be messy in asia.many us trops r now as i speak is landing in manila and loag airports.is this will escalate im moving away hir | ||||||
| 40 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 10:40 |
 Lil Kim | ||||||
| 41 | Perm Dude ID: 109331013 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 11:06 |
More armor against the bullsh!t of the Bush Administration A shorter piece, saying much of the same thing Essentially, North Korea in 1994 tried to process plutonium. Clinton threatened them, then Carter negotiated the Agreed Framework. By all accounts, that plutonium was locked up for eight years. In 2002 Bush announced that North Korea was trying to process uranium (another way to get a bomb. But think many months in time rather than weeks with plutonium). Bush's response: We're pulling out of the agreement which made you stop using plutonium. He's replaced bluster with, well, nothing. And no one should be surprised at what has happened. The Administration seems almost fatalistically inclined in allowing North Korea and Iraq to drag themselves toward the bomb. So their line now is "talks won't work, because it didn't work for Clinton" which is bullsh!t, of course. It didn't work because it was never the intention of Bush to follow it. Or replace it with an agreement it found more agreeable to the Administration. | ||||||
| 42 | sarge33rd ID: 257222410 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 11:22 |
From your first link PD; Our government's inattention has allowed North Korea to establish a new and dangerous threat to the Asia-Pacific region. It is probably too late to reverse that damage, but serious attention to this problem can still limit the extent of the damage. {emphasis added} That part right there...says it all. | ||||||
| 43 | Boxman ID: 427471614 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 13:31 |
Political cartoons, blaming Bush. My oh my how the lefty posters here mimmick their liberal representatives in government. Where's the plan? PD alludes to another thread. Sox takes a stab at it, but for the most part the leftists are silent. We've even got Sarge throwing in the towel earlier in the thread. If this is representative of what the alleged Democrat takeover of the Senate and House will look like we might as well all buy English to North Korean language books. WHERE'S THE PLAN? 
| ||||||
| 44 | sarge33rd ID: 257222410 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 13:37 | if you werent so patrhetic box...you'd be comical. | ||||||
| 45 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 13:48 |
WHERE'S THE PLAN? Rather than concede defeat, as the subject field suggests, deal with the problem head on. Reestablish a direct dialogue with North Korea in attempt to diplomatically avoid a cold war that will leave the existance of Seoul and Tokyo and other cities to the paranoid whims of Kim Jong Il | ||||||
| 46 | Boxman ID: 427471614 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 13:55 |
Didn't Clinton try this and it just went into one ear of Kim Jong Il and out the other? For all intents and purposes, what Clinton did with NK just wound up being a NK version of a hudna. Why are you apparently opposed to the six party method? | ||||||
| 47 | Tree ID: 1411442914 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 14:02 |
If this is representative of what the alleged Democrat takeover of the Senate and House will look like we might as well all buy English to North Korean language books. OMGASZ!!!!!111!!1!! FEAR!!1111!!!!! Vote DEmoCRAt and the TErroristz win!!!1!!! | ||||||
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 14:09 |
Didn't Clinton try this and it just went into one ear of Kim Jong Il and out the other? No. It was a partial failure. See PD post 41. One reason it partially failed was because the achieved agreements were not supported by Congress. Why are you apparently opposed to the six party method? Because it is a complete failure - or, at best, it is about to become one. | ||||||
| 49 | boikin ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 14:15 | Here is the problem as i see it NK and Iran are in similar boats, both have ego problems and failing economies though not nearly as much for Iran thanks to Oil. To cover up for the econmic woes they start to try and build nuclear weapons/plants in order to draw attention from there own weakness. We react by either giving into them which makes them look strong in front of there people and hopefully will help there economy or we place them under an embargo which gives them an excuse for why there country sucks. It not your leadership it is the US slogan. So that leaves us with really no good solutions besides pray for an over throw of the goverment. where is CIA when you need them. | ||||||
| 50 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:04 |
October 11, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Solving the Korean Stalemate, One Step at a Time By JIMMY CARTER ATLANTA IN 1994 the North Koreans expelled inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and were threatening to process spent nuclear fuel into plutonium, giving them the ability to produce nuclear weapons. With the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula, there was a consensus that the forces of South Korea and the United States could overwhelmingly defeat North Korea. But it was also known that North Korea could quickly launch more than 20,000 shells and missiles into nearby Seoul. The American commander in South Korea, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated that total casualties would far exceed those of the Korean War. Responding to an invitation from President Kim Il-sung of North Korea, and with the approval of President Bill Clinton, I went to Pyongyang and negotiated an agreement under which North Korea would cease its nuclear program at Yongbyon and permit inspectors from the atomic agency to return to the site to assure that the spent fuel was not reprocessed. It was also agreed that direct talks would be held between the two Koreas. The spent fuel (estimated to be adequate for a half-dozen bombs) continued to be monitored, and extensive bilateral discussions were held. The United States assured the North Koreans that there would be no military threat to them, that it would supply fuel oil to replace the lost nuclear power and that it would help build two modern atomic power plants, with their fuel rods and operation to be monitored by international inspectors. The summit talks resulted in South Korean President Kim Dae-jung earning the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his successful efforts to ease tensions on the peninsula. But beginning in 2002, the United States branded North Korea as part of an axis of evil, threatened military action, ended the shipments of fuel oil and the construction of nuclear power plants and refused to consider further bilateral talks. In their discussions with me at this time, North Korean spokesmen seemed convinced that the American positions posed a serious danger to their country and to its political regime. Responding in its ill-advised but predictable way, Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, expelled atomic energy agency inspectors, resumed processing fuel rods and began developing nuclear explosive devices. Six-nation talks finally concluded in an agreement last September that called for North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and for the United States and North Korea to respect each other’s sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize relations. Each side subsequently claimed that the other had violated the agreement. The United States imposed severe financial sanctions and Pyongyang adopted the deeply troubling nuclear option. The current military situation is similar but worse than it was a decade ago: we can still destroy North Korea’s army, but if we do it is likely to result in many more than a million South Korean and American casualties. If and when it is confirmed that the recent explosion in North Korea was nuclear, the international community will once again be faced with difficult choices. One option, the most likely one, is to try to force Pyongyang’s leaders to abandon their nuclear program with military threats and a further tightening of the embargoes, increasing the suffering of its already starving people. Two important facts must be faced: Kim Jong-il and his military leaders have proven themselves almost impervious to outside pressure, and both China and South Korea have shown that they are reluctant to destabilize the regime. This approach is also more likely to stimulate further nuclear weapons activity. The other option is to make an effort to put into effect the September denuclearization agreement, which the North Koreans still maintain is feasible. The simple framework for a step-by-step agreement exists, with the United States giving a firm and direct statement of no hostile intent, and moving toward normal relations if North Korea forgoes any further nuclear weapons program and remains at peace with its neighbors. Each element would have to be confirmed by mutual actions combined with unimpeded international inspections. Although a small nuclear test is a far cry from even a crude deliverable bomb, this second option has become even more difficult now, but it is unlikely that the North Koreans will back down unless the United States meets this basic demand. Washington’s pledge of no direct talks could be finessed through secret discussions with a trusted emissary like former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who earlier this week said, “It’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.” What must be avoided is to leave a beleaguered nuclear nation convinced that it is permanently excluded from the international community, its existence threatened, its people suffering horrible deprivation and its hard-liners in total control of military and political policy. Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. | ||||||
| 51 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:05 |
October 11, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist The Bus Is Waiting By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As eras go, the post-cold war has been a pretty good one. The collapse of communism, the spread of free-market democracies and the general reign of stability bought and paid for by U.S. power all combined to create a world in which China and India have been able to rise peacefully, America has prospered, and Europe has become whole and free. Yes, there’s been 9/11, Bosnia, the rise of the petro-dictators and African wars — which are hardly trivial. But all in all, compared with the vast repression and nuclear standoff that characterized the cold war, the post-cold-war era has been much better for a lot of humanity. Too bad it’s probably over. Yes, one day historians may argue that the post-cold war started on 11/9 and ended on 10/9. The Berlin Wall fell on 11/9 — Nov. 9, 1989, which ushered in the post-cold-war world. The apparent North Korean nuclear test went up on Oct. 9, 2006, which, may have ushered out the post-cold-war world and ushered in a much more problematic era — the post-post-cold-war world. This post-post-cold-war era will be defined by three new features — if things continue as they are. First is a nuclear Asia, triggered by North Korea’s flaunting of its nuclear weapons. How long will Japan, Taiwan and South Korea remain nonnuclear with Kim Jong-il brandishing his bomb? Second is a nuclear Middle East. Iran is almost certain to follow North Korea’s lead, and once the Shiite Persians in Iran have the bomb, how long will it be before the Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, even Syria have one too? Third is a disintegrating Iraq in the heart of the Arab world, with its destabilizing impact on oil prices and terrorism. Together these will add up to a much more dangerous and volatile post-post-cold-war world — unless ... Unless, what? Unless China and Russia get their act together and understand that the post-post-cold-war world is a much bigger threat to their prosperity than a post-cold-war world in which U.S. power is pre-eminent. You read me right — the post-cold-war world can be preserved only if Russia and China get over their ambivalence about U.S. power and if the Bush team gets over its ambivalence about Iran and North Korea. How so? The U.S. is sanctioned out when it comes to Iran and North Korea. We don’t have any more unilateral sanctions with which to pressure either regime to halt its nuclear adventure. The only countries that could have an impact on North Korea and Iran are China and Russia. If China told North Korea that unless it dismantled its nuclear program and put its facilities under U.N. inspection, Beijing would cut off its energy and food, Kim Jong-il would relent. He is not suicidal. Anything less than such an explicit Chinese threat will mean a nuclear North Korea and eventually a nuclear Asia — which will certainly not be good for China’s growth prospects. And if China and Russia told Iran that they would join in the toughest possible U.N. economic sanctions on Tehran if it persisted in its nuclear program, the ayatollahs would also back down. Because then the Europeans would have the spine to join in sanctions and Tehran would face a united front. To be sure, both moves would be greatly helped by a declaration from the Bush team that it had overcome its infighting and decided to pursue changes in behavior instead of changes in regimes in North Korea and Iran, and would be prepared to give explicit security guarantees to both if they verifiably ended their nuclear programs. When an administration can’t make up its mind between regime change and change of behavior, it gets neither. And that is what the Bush team has gotten. So, thanks to North Korea’s nuclear test, we’ve come to a moment of truth. Yes, we have to make up our minds, but so, too, must Moscow and Beijing. They constantly advocate “multilateral” solutions. Well, will they sign up for the kind of biting multilateral sanctions that would work vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea and make “unilateral” U.S. military options unnecessary? If Russia and China want to see the post-cold-war world continue, they can’t be free riders anymore — opposing both U.S. unilateralism and effective multilateralism that requires them to do something hard. They’ve got to start paying a price to preserve this world. If they do, this relatively benign post-cold-war world might continue. If they don’t, if they keep trying to be free riders on our bus, we’ll all stall — because America can’t keep this bus moving alone any longer, especially when the road gets this dangerous. The bus stops here. | ||||||
| 52 | boikin ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:13 | I think he illustrates the hypocracy of the world right now. we have people saying we should not support dictators and there inhumane policy just to support our polical goals, while these are the same people who say we should negotiate with NK. which is it? I believe most everyone here seems to fall into this catagory. | ||||||
| 53 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:22 | Trying to prevent descent into a volitile and perilous world crisis is a bit different from your run of the mill political goal. | ||||||
| 54 | boikin ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:32 | Mith so you except hypocracy if the ends justify the means? | ||||||
| 55 | sarge33rd ID: 257222410 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:42 | It isnt hypocrisy. Didplomacy had been working, until our admninistration went back on our end of the deal. Its reinstating what was working vs continuing down a doomed path. | ||||||
| 56 | boikin ID: 59831214 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 16:56 | no it is hypocracy when you say we should not deal with inhumane dictators in one part of the world and then say that we should here. | ||||||
| 57 | sarge33rd ID: 257222410 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 17:01 |
boikin...someday, you'll wake up and see reality. Each situation calls for its own solution(s). This dilemma had been previously solved, until our leader whipped it out and stomped on it. Now it requires that we remedy that action, or face buclear proliferation. NK with nuclear technology (specifically weaponry), is an open invitation to terrorists for obtaining said technology. What we have to do, is prioritize our words and synch those with our actions. Number one priority HAS to be, keeping nukes out of reach of terrorist organizations. Surely, you can see that? | ||||||
| 58 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 18:12 |
Mith so you except hypocracy if the ends justify the means? There is nothing Machiavellian about negotiating with your enemy to prevent a crisis. If you're going to nitpick then you have to make sure to get the context right. If you don't understand the difference between negotiating to avoid a nuclear crisis and negotiating an oil drilling deal or some other specifically capitalistic purpose then I can't help you. | ||||||
| 59 | Tree ID: 269351117 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 19:41 |
Bush rejects idea of talks with N. Korea and my favorite part: He said the United States "reserves all options to defend our friends and our interests in the region against the threats from North Korea," a stance he said includes increased defense cooperation, especially on missile defense, with Japan and South Korea. But he added: "I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military." mmmhmm, indeed. please see "Iraq commma Quaqmire in" | ||||||
| 60 | katietx ID: 357543117 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 19:51 |
Saw an interview with Lisa Ling (who visited NK with a group of doctors earlier this year) and some of the things she was told by her "handlers" are that the general population in NK believes: ~The war with the US is ongoing ~The US would never be able to "overtake" NK ~NK has had nuclear capability for many years but has chosen not to use it for humanitarian reasons Cell phones are not allowed as the gov't has stated that the US will be able to target individual citizens. No western magazines, newspapers allowed. She stated the information in NK is so stifled that has something terrible happened in the US or the "general western world," she wouldn't have known it until leaving NK. I'm not so sure that diplomacy would work in this type of situation. Nor do I want any escalation in troop strenght. A very untenable situation indeed. As stated before in this thread, it is almost impossible to negotiate with such a repressive gov't leadership. | ||||||
| 61 | Perm Dude ID: 109331013 Wed, Oct 11, 2006, 21:35 | And yet we have done so. Coupled with that, it is impossible to get what we want from them without doing so, since they are a closed society and we can't influence them as we can other countries. | ||||||
| 62 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Oct 12, 2006, 11:31 |
October 12, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Kim Jong-il’s Suicide Watch By B. R. MYERS Seoul, South Korea HOURS after Monday’s nuclear test, President Bush issued a stern warning to North Korea — but only against the passing of nuclear technology to other states or non-state entities. The president’s declaration thus reflected a confident consensus in Washington that while Kim Jong-il may try selling his nukes, he would never dream of using them himself. Why not? The explanation was given by a former national security adviser, Donald Gregg, on Monday: “Don’t panic. Kim Jong-il’s objective is survival ... not suicide.” The same soothing logic could be applied to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, but of course it won’t be. These long-term diagnoses of Mr. Kim’s psyche are a roundabout way of saying that because he is not a fundamentalist Muslim, he is unlikely to do anything really crazy. This sort of cultural profiling, however, can get us into real danger. Japan’s emperor during World War II, Hirohito, was neither religious nor suicidal, and he led his nation into a war that no rational leader could have hoped to win. The point is relevant, because although journalists persist in calling North Korea a Stalinist state, its worldview is far closer to that of fascist Japan. Like the Japanese in the 1930’s, the North Koreans trace the origins of their race back thousands of years to a single progenitor, and claim that this pure bloodline makes them uniquely virtuous. The country’s mass games — government-choreographed spectacles with a cast of more than 100,000 — are often mistaken by foreign journalists as exercises in Stalinism. They are in fact celebrations of ethnic homogeneity. “No masses in the world,” the state-run Cheollima magazine reminded readers in 2005, “are purer and more upright than our masses.” In state propaganda, Kim Jong-il is often linked, as Hirohito once was, to images of white horses, snow-capped mountain peaks and other symbols of racial purity. South Korea, on the other hand, is regarded as contaminated by too close contact with other races. At a recent meeting between generals from both Koreas, the North delegation’s leader condemned the South for allowing racial intermarriage. “Not a single drop of ink,” he intoned, “must be allowed to fall into the Han River.” Naturally enough, the North Koreans’ race theory, like that of the Japanese fascists, actuates a blithe indifference to international law. A uniquely virtuous people has no reason to obey its moral inferiors, be they allies or enemies. China has now learned that despite decades of military and economic assistance it can draw on no residue of good will in dealing with Pyongyang. Neither can the South Koreans, whom the North Koreans will revile for their ethnic treason no matter how much cash they pump northward. This utter imperviousness to gestures of friendship and conciliation bears obvious implications for the prospect of normal relations between North Korea and America. The northern regime has so far restricted its racial propaganda to the home audience, because it wants the world to go on misperceiving it as a Stalinist state. This way we continue to pin our hopes on the kind of trust-building dialogue that worked so well with Communists in the 1980’s — and failed so disastrously with the pure-race crowd a half-century earlier. While the North Koreans could kill a lot of people, they do not pose as great a threat to world security as imperial Japan did. Never have they shown any interest in forging an empire. All the same, the irrationality of their worldview is such that we should, at the very least, stop assuming that they would never use their own weaponry. While Kim may not be suicidal himself, he shares Hirohito’s penchant for encouraging this quality in his people: “Defense until Death” is an increasingly popular slogan. In 2003 a colorful poster was disseminated to the foreign press showing a fat missile in flight with a suicide-readiness slogan on it: “Yankee, take a good hard look.” That isn’t bad advice. B. R. Myers, an associate professor of North Korean studies at Korea University, is the author of “Han Sorya and North Korean Literature.” | ||||||
| 63 | boikin ID: 59831214 Thu, Oct 12, 2006, 11:39 |
Each situation calls for its own solution(s). This dilemma had been previously solved, until our leader whipped it out and stomped on it. Now it requires that we remedy that action, or face buclear proliferation. NK with nuclear technology (specifically weaponry), is an open invitation to terrorists for obtaining said technology. What we have to do, is prioritize our words and synch those with our actions. Number one priority HAS to be, keeping nukes out of reach of terrorist organizations. Surely, you can see that? no i do relize each situation needs its own solution i was just pionting out that one minute you will be like we should not ally our selves with dictators and condemn the idea and then now you say we should negotiate with them. I can not beleive i going to do this but i am going to paraphrase W on this one but how is it that you argue that the US should seek allies and now all of sudden when we seek allies with NK we should go it allone. So for the moral of story do not bash people for inconsistent ideas on what our policy should be when you yourself can not hold your self to those same standards. | ||||||
| 64 | Perm Dude ID: 109331013 Thu, Oct 12, 2006, 11:43 |
I think there is a huge difference between "allying" with someone and negotiating with them. | ||||||
| 65 | boikin ID: 59831214 Thu, Oct 12, 2006, 11:44 | Walk nice pick up there, i wish i read a similiar analysis on Iran though i would hope it would not refer to them as crazy, I do not think the Iranians are crazy maybe a little more dangerous becuase there people do of history of conquest, though from what i have read most of there persian traditions have been some what squased by the state until recently. | ||||||
| 66 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Oct 12, 2006, 13:25 |
Yes, interesting article coming from a professor in Korea on Korea. - walk | ||||||
| 67 | Motley Crue Dude ID: 439372011 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 18:38 |
Korea wants to be allies with the U.S.? I have never thought about it from that angle. It's virtually impossible because of our strategic alliances with South Korea and Japan, but I can see how lining up yet another Asian ally is certainly to our advantage. One day, there really will be a true rivalry with China. Is this in line with what others have perceived as part of the dynamic between us and the DPRK? | ||||||
| 68 | Perm Dude ID: 110192710 Sat, Jan 27, 2007, 19:42 |
I'd always believe North Korea was using this as an attention and respect-getting device. Post 46 here, among others. pd | ||||||
| 69 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 14:41 | Nuclear Deal Reached With North Korea, Envoy Says | ||||||
| 70 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Feb 12, 2007, 18:38 |
Inspectors would return to the country for the first time in more than four years, and the North would have to declare “all of its existing nuclear programs.” That is a reference to the American accusation that the North has a hidden program to enrich uranium, using technology purchased from the rogue Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The North once admitted that such a program existed, American officials say, but has since denied it. The negotiations on the step-by-step deal, which the Bush administration hopes will lead North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, appeared near collapse on Sunday over North Korea’s demands for huge shipments of fuel oil and electricity before agreeing to a schedule for turning over its nuclear weapons and fuel. Well, it's high time we end America's Longest war, the war that lasted even longer than M.A.S.H. ran. Seriously, the North Koreans have been fed the ridiculous notion that they were still at war with the South and the USA; it was the basis of the authoritarian control of the population. Tell the people that "the War is over" and they will be ready for a new mindset, hopefully one that will will have input from the outside world. | ||||||
| 71 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 08:21 | erm...isnt the whole "fuel oil in trade for not doing nuclear", essentially the same agreement Clinton had in place and then shrub disavowed????? | ||||||
| 72 | Perm Dude ID: 40113139 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 10:25 |
Yeah, that's right, sarge. But when Demcrats do it, it is "trading with the enemy" or "cozying up." When Republicans do it, it is "diplomacy." If a Democrat was doing this deal, it would be characterized on FOX as "giving North Korea huge amounts of oil and money to buy Kim's silence while he goes underground with his program." | ||||||
| 73 | bibA Leader ID: 261028117 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 13:35 | Next Iran? I would have no objections to the administration giving Iran 10 times as much as Korea if it would aid in efforts to come to some rapprochement with them. Unfortunately, this administration may not have aims along those lines. If I were to be proven wrong, and Bush did accomplish something with Iran similar to N.Korea, my opinion of him would improve quite a bit. | ||||||
| 74 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 16:00 | not mine. Lets see...a Dem ahs an agreement in place, shrub declines to honor said agreement, whiwch in turn causes the other nation to seek nukes. 3 or 4 years later, shrub reaches essentially the same agreement as he had previously declined to honor. Now we're supposed to herald him and his "peaceful" ways?????? He broke this same agreement already. I know it, you know it and NK knows it too. Why would anyone expect shrub to honor it now? Not expecting it to be honored, why would NK honor it? | ||||||
| 75 | boikin ID: 59831214 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 16:09 | i think it says they ended the agreement becuase NK supposedly broke the treaty, but i guess you have to have your biased oppionion about everything. personally we should be much more worried about pakistan than NK. | ||||||
| 76 | bibA Leader ID: 261028117 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 18:04 |
sarge - I agree with everything you say in posts 71 and 74. That my personal opinion of Bush would improve if he were to take positive steps vis a vis Iran doesn't mean I would nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. But it would be a step in a positive direction. Like I said tho, I don't predict that his administration will do something along these lines. I hope your points re Clinton's previous agreements and the current Bush deal being so similar are made known to the public. | ||||||
| 77 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 19:46 |
Understand bibA. re 75...what biased opinion? Oh thats right...you dont much care for facts. Sorry, I had forgotten that, um...well...fact. *shrug* | ||||||
| 78 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Tue, Feb 13, 2007, 22:09 |
Mr. Bush’s advisers were being confronted by barbs from veterans of the Clinton administration, who argued that the same deal struck on Tuesday had been within reach several years and a half-dozen weapons ago, had only Mr. Bush chosen to negotiate with the North rather than fixate on upending its government. Outside Pressures Snapped Korean Deadlock Well, I must say that Christopher Hill is the first representative of the current Administration whom I didn't immediately despise. I agree that this deal should have been done, "several years and half-a-dozen weapons ago", but I commend our representatives for getting it done anyhow. | ||||||
| 79 | Perm Dude ID: 20629147 Sat, Jul 14, 2007, 19:21 |
North Korea shuts down reactor? Good initial news. Let's see what the inspectors say. Your man Christopher Hill working OT on this one it looks like, SZ. | ||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||