|
 Read-Only Topic
Go |
Find |
Notify |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Good morning, Sawdust. *** Strawberry, This is very impressive, a substantial discussion of historical background on North Korea's nuclear program, and tied into different presidential administrations. I've been googling around for someone who wrote it up into a journalistic piece, but don't know the issue thoroughly well enough to find things efficiently. I just want to thank you for crystalizing several issues in a very straightforward way: quote: Originally posted by Strawberry:
The CURRENT issue (and CURRENT big mistake) is the Bush admin's ultimatum that until NK gives up its nuclear program, the US will not engage in any meaningful dialogue regardless of the format.
NK is willing to talk to us in either format, but we have refused their advances since 2001 because of the above ultimatum.
Some things to consider:
- the nuke(s) recently tested was fueled with uranium that was NOT processed during the Clinton admin. I.e. it was processed either before Clinton took office or after GWB took office.
- The reactor that uranium was obtained from was built during the Reagan admin.
- NK was estimated to have had enough uranium in 1992 (before Clinton) for 1-2 bombs.
- Also, NK was estimated to have enough uranium in 2000 (after Clinton) for 1-2 bombs. Notice this amount did not change during the Clinton admin because NK did not process any new uranium during the Clinton admin, though it has quadrupled the amount since 2001 after Bush cut off all talks.
- The 94 GOP Congress blocked the 94 Framework agreement from going forward with political pressure and legislative threats. Hence, it was the USA which first broke the terms of the 94 agreement when it failed to transport and install plutonium reactors to NK. Because of this US breech of terms, NK then refused to ship out the previously processed uranium, which was already packed and sealed and ready to go.
- Hence, Clinton screwed up by not meeting the terms of the 94 agreement. And the GOP screwed up by interfering in that agreement and pressuring Clinton to abandon the agreement.
- Again, it is quite possible the NKs would have cheated and broke their agreement no matter what we did. But we have never tested this assumption because it is the USA which keeps breaking agreements with NK (as we did in 94, 2001, and 2002). Clinton (under pressure from the newly elected GOP) did it just after 94, and BushJR did it when he refused to sign the agreements negotiated in 2000 by Clinton--agreements which would have made the recent test impossible and which would have caused the NK's long range missiles to be dismantled. Also, the SK leader was deeply humiliated when he showed up at the White House in 2001 to join Bush in signing the agreement, only to learn in real-time on TV that Bush was going to refuse. The 2002 breach of terms came after we cut off NK's banking access just 5 days after an agreement to respect them.
- Bush's entire philosophy on NK is based on the faulty assumption that China, SK, and Russia will allow NK to be choked to death. However, we shall soon see proof of this faulty logic when those countries refuse US please to stop trading with NK, as they currently do to the tunes of billions each. China will do anything to prevent a NK collapse, because it does not want a pro-American NK gvmt on its NK border. As such, every day Bush waits for NK to collapse, NK simply shrugs its shoulders and plows ahead with its nuclear program, knowing that once it becomes a full nuclear power, it can finally ignore the USA and our threats and broken promises.
- NK is emboldened now to proceed with its nuclear/missile test efforts without fear of an American invasion or attack because SK will not allow a US attack from SK, and also because the USA is entrenched in Iraq.
... I'm interested in your sources. You've piqued my interest in this topic, in a way the tabloid approach to the threat to U.S. interests doesn't quite. Kate
---------------------------------------------------------------
"if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got."
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by --Kate: Good morning, Sawdust. *** Strawberry, This is very impressive, a substantial discussion of historical background on North Korea's nuclear program, and tied into different presidential administrations. I've been googling around for someone who wrote it up into a journalistic piece, but don't know the issue thoroughly well enough to find things efficiently. I just want to thank you for crystalizing several issues in a very straightforward way: quote: Originally posted by Strawberry:
The CURRENT issue (and CURRENT big mistake) is the Bush admin's ultimatum that until NK gives up its nuclear program, the US will not engage in any meaningful dialogue regardless of the format.
NK is willing to talk to us in either format, but we have refused their advances since 2001 because of the above ultimatum.
Some things to consider:
- the nuke(s) recently tested was fueled with uranium that was NOT processed during the Clinton admin. I.e. it was processed either before Clinton took office or after GWB took office.
- The reactor that uranium was obtained from was built during the Reagan admin.
- NK was estimated to have had enough uranium in 1992 (before Clinton) for 1-2 bombs.
- Also, NK was estimated to have enough uranium in 2000 (after Clinton) for 1-2 bombs. Notice this amount did not change during the Clinton admin because NK did not process any new uranium during the Clinton admin, though it has quadrupled the amount since 2001 after Bush cut off all talks.
- The 94 GOP Congress blocked the 94 Framework agreement from going forward with political pressure and legislative threats. Hence, it was the USA which first broke the terms of the 94 agreement when it failed to transport and install plutonium reactors to NK. Because of this US breech of terms, NK then refused to ship out the previously processed uranium, which was already packed and sealed and ready to go.
- Hence, Clinton screwed up by not meeting the terms of the 94 agreement. And the GOP screwed up by interfering in that agreement and pressuring Clinton to abandon the agreement.
- Again, it is quite possible the NKs would have cheated and broke their agreement no matter what we did. But we have never tested this assumption because it is the USA which keeps breaking agreements with NK (as we did in 94, 2001, and 2002). Clinton (under pressure from the newly elected GOP) did it just after 94, and BushJR did it when he refused to sign the agreements negotiated in 2000 by Clinton--agreements which would have made the recent test impossible and which would have caused the NK's long range missiles to be dismantled. Also, the SK leader was deeply humiliated when he showed up at the White House in 2001 to join Bush in signing the agreement, only to learn in real-time on TV that Bush was going to refuse. The 2002 breach of terms came after we cut off NK's banking access just 5 days after an agreement to respect them.
- Bush's entire philosophy on NK is based on the faulty assumption that China, SK, and Russia will allow NK to be choked to death. However, we shall soon see proof of this faulty logic when those countries refuse US please to stop trading with NK, as they currently do to the tunes of billions each. China will do anything to prevent a NK collapse, because it does not want a pro-American NK gvmt on its NK border. As such, every day Bush waits for NK to collapse, NK simply shrugs its shoulders and plows ahead with its nuclear program, knowing that once it becomes a full nuclear power, it can finally ignore the USA and our threats and broken promises.
- NK is emboldened now to proceed with its nuclear/missile test efforts without fear of an American invasion or attack because SK will not allow a US attack from SK, and also because the USA is entrenched in Iraq.
... I'm interested in your sources. You've piqued my interest in this topic, in a way the tabloid approach to the threat to U.S. interests doesn't quite. Kate
Hi Kate Some of this is nicley condenced on wiki--it's been a while since I googled for it there. Some of it Tom said on the radio yesterday. The parts about the uranium/reactors came from an interview with some lady think tank person on NPR recently (sorry don't remember her name). I also have heard Leon Segal (Near East Asia Studies something-or-another think tank guy and book author) on an NPR interview yesterday, and he was quite impressive. I was unable to find an NPR interview transcript. He was quite adamant that the US has made many mistakes in every administration thru the years, and that each of the NK cheating events were preceded by US breeches of agreed terms and hence we have never fully tested NK's committment to follow-thru with its promises (some of which have been quite generous), and that Bush's insistence for NK to give up all its negotiating chips even before negotiations begin will result in nothing but a full-scale nuclear capable NK in the not too distant future. Much of this I have heard/read repeated from different sources. You can google Leon Segal for various bits-pieces of his thoughts, but I can't find any one link from him yet that really puts it all together. I also couldn't find his books on amazon. |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sawdust: Strawberry, I wasn't addressing this thread, I was addressing this comment: quote: Sawdust, I don't know why the mods let you attack people here continually like that.
Anyway, the opinions below are not created by me. I am too dumb for that (to which sawdust will predictably respond to).
Your participation on the board is the most partisan of any poster on the board at the moment. In truth, I find it amusing. With respect to the wife and dog comment, I've been married for 25 years and have a strict no hitting policy and my dogs both love me. On the board, I can take as good as I give and you may say anything you want about me with my blessing.
Being called a partisan is not offensive. Sawdust's long-term presence here may be one of the reasons you don't have a lot of other people here, if his overly harrassing and overly rude antics toward me (since my arrival) are any indication. I find many of his posts to me to be disruptive and OT and designed to intimidate rather than to contribute to the discussion at hand. Such tactics are often used by trolls (who occasionally throw out a claim of being an independant or unhappy with Bush for some minor reason) to keep membership down. |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
Strawberry, you came to the board with talking points which carried little substance. I mearly pointed out some issues which were not based in fact, like the president sets gas prices so his party can be elected. I'm sorry if you don't like it but you'll find that if you make a claim like that here, you may have to back it up or back down. That's the difference between boards that let you spew talking points and those that make you think. I don't give myself any credit for participating here a long time but it's the exchange and testing of ideas that kept me coming back. Stick around, if I disagree with you, I'll let you know. If I don't, you won't hear from me in all likelyhood.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
quote: The 2002 breach of terms came after we cut off NK's banking access just 5 days after an agreement to respect them.
So this was not the first time? eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
|
| |
| Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by eleyballel: quote: The 2002 breach of terms came after we cut off NK's banking access just 5 days after an agreement to respect them.
So this was not the first time? eley
That's the one. I got the year wrong. Sorry. |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
Ely, one of the first conditions of the Framework agreement was that North Korea dismantle it's graphite heavy water reactor which is necessary for the processing of weapons grade plutonium. They didn't do that and the agreement slowly fell apart after that. The light water reactors they wanted for the generation of electricity were never funded and if you look at the picture of North Korea at night in one of the links above you'll notice that the lights are out because they have no power. Kim Jong Il just wants someone to come in and fix his country and he's playing the only card he has to try to get help. He spends all the money his government has on his million man army. If he would divert some of it to infrastructure, he wouldn't be in such dire straights.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sawdust:
Ely, one of the first conditions of the Framework agreement was that North Korea dismantle it's graphite heavy water reactor which is necessary for the processing of weapons grade plutonium. They didn't do that and the agreement slowly fell apart after that. The light water reactors they wanted for the generation of electricity were never funded and if you look at the picture of North Korea at night in one of the links above you'll notice that the lights are out because they have no power. Kim Jong Il just wants someone to come in and fix his country and he's playing the only card he has to try to get help. He spends all the money his government has on his million man army. If he would divert some of it to infrastructure, he wouldn't be in such dire straights.
I believe they did that in response to US refusal to ship/install new plutonium reactors as we earlier agreed to. Contrary to many Clinton haters, the USA never gave NK the agreed upon reactors (because the newly elected 94 GOP congress demanded that Clinton not honor the 94 agreement). |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Contrary to many Clinton haters, the USA never gave NK the agreed upon reactors (because the newly elected 94 GOP congress demanded that Clinton not honor the 94 agreement).
Congress didn't demand that Clinton not honor the agreement. South Korea was to build the light water reactors and the US was supposed to share in the cost of construction most of which was to be born by South Korea. Congress didn't appropriate money for the reactors. When Congress didn't appropriate the money, the rest of the financing collapsed in South Koreas National Assembally. We did send them oil to power their oil powered electical plants under the terms of the agreement the cost of which was born by US taxpayers. In 2002 Bush insisted that the IAEA inspect their enrichment program and North Korea refused to allow inspections because the light water reactors weren't complete. At that point, Bush decided to halt shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea. When the oil stopped coming, North Korea declared the agreement had collapsed.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sawdust: quote: Contrary to many Clinton haters, the USA never gave NK the agreed upon reactors (because the newly elected 94 GOP congress demanded that Clinton not honor the 94 agreement).
Congress didn't demand that Clinton not honor the agreement. South Korea was to build the light water reactors and the US was supposed to share in the cost of construction most of which was to be born by South Korea. Congress didn't appropriate money for the reactors. When Congress didn't appropriate the money, the rest of the financing collapsed in South Koreas National Assembally. We did send them oil to power their oil powered electical plants under the terms of the agreement the cost of which was born by US taxpayers. In 2002 Bush insisted that the IAEA inspect their enrichment program and North Korea refused to allow inspections because the light water reactors weren't complete. At that point, Bush decided to halt shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea. When the oil stopped coming, North Korea declared the agreement had collapsed.
So what you're say is, that during this time, probably spanning several decades, while the US is fannying about reneging on deals and isolating North Korea from the rest of the world along with help from that other country that invaded and occupied Korea killing, murdering millions of Korean civilians. North Korea was suffering without power, pitching parts of the country into darkness, and the North Korean people have been suffering as a consequence. So what you're saying is, the US put a stop to North Korea being able to provide enough power for its domestic needs. The US caused North Korea to stop its own development in one area, whilst witholding development on the promised replacement. Leaving North Korea with a desperate short full, and an anti American attitude as a result. |
| |
| Posts: 6749 | Location: here again | Registered: 12 November 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sawdust: quote: Contrary to many Clinton haters, the USA never gave NK the agreed upon reactors (because the newly elected 94 GOP congress demanded that Clinton not honor the 94 agreement).
Congress didn't demand that Clinton not honor the agreement. South Korea was to build the light water reactors and the US was supposed to share in the cost of construction most of which was to be born by South Korea. Congress didn't appropriate money for the reactors. When Congress didn't appropriate the money, the rest of the financing collapsed in South Koreas National Assembally. We did send them oil to power their oil powered electical plants under the terms of the agreement the cost of which was born by US taxpayers. In 2002 Bush insisted that the IAEA inspect their enrichment program and North Korea refused to allow inspections because the light water reactors weren't complete. At that point, Bush decided to halt shipments of heavy fuel oil to North Korea. When the oil stopped coming, North Korea declared the agreement had collapsed.
NK had already removed the rods from the reactors and packed up all fissile materials with US/UN observors and crated and sealed them and were ready to ship them out of country. But Clinton wasn't man enough to stick by his guns and he then blinked and did not commence installing the new reactors in NK as per the agreement because of GOP political pressure on Clinton and their disdain for the 94 terms (transferring new reactor technology to NK). That's according to Leon Segal on NPR yesterday, and that's where the US and NK started down this long, complicated road of broken engagement. You seem to be trying to consistently spin that all breeches were caused by NK. I am trying to relate what I heard from Leon Segal and other sources say that in fact the US (because of partisan disagreements) caused major breeches of our agreements and that we have missed major opportunities to test whether NK was serious in dismantling its nuclear program as well as its long range missiles, which it offered to do in Clinton's fial negotaitions (but which Bush unilaterally killed without consultation with SK) Yet I am the partisan one according to you. |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
Oh, and then the US calls North Korea the axis of evil whilst the US is the one causing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions if the sanctions deaths are included, to die in Iraq.
So North Korea has decided to do it for themselves, and have attempted the only viable deterrent against US murderous agression.
|
| |
| Posts: 6749 | Location: here again | Registered: 12 November 2004 | |
|
|
Sawdust: quote: Ely, one of the first conditions of the Framework agreement was that North Korea dismantle it's graphite heavy water reactor which is necessary for the processing of weapons grade plutonium. They didn't do that and the agreement slowly fell apart after that.
I am not keeping close tabs on this thread or this story, and so I'm not sure what agreement you are reffering to. However the agreement that I was reffering to occured in Sept. of 2005 and the Bush administration renigged on it in 4 days--hardly time for NK to implement major changes. eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
|
| |
| Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by sunrise part two:
Oh, and then the US calls North Korea the axis of evil whilst the US is the one causing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions if the sanctions deaths are included, to die in Iraq.
So North Korea has decided to do it for themselves, and have attempted the only viable deterrent against US murderous agression.
Sorry to again rely on Leon Segal, but he commented on that yesterday. He said the "axis of evil" comments had no effect on NK. He said NK itself uses such language so they shrug it off. What matters most to them (and the USA) is "actions". The US under Clinton reneged on the 94 agreement first. The US under bush unilateraly refused to sign the accords agreed upon in 2001. And the US reneged on the 2005 agreement by shutting down its international banking access just a few days after we agreed to respect their soveriegnty and not to impose any sanctions. The US response to NK has been fragmented no doubt because of US partisan disagreements on how to proceed. pesonally, I think the 94 framework might have worked, but we'll never know because Clinton wasn't man enough to stick to his guns under heavy GOP political fire to sabotage the 94 framework. Even had the framework not worked, we'd at least have long ago unambiguously tested NK's committments to disarmament, and then we could have adjusted accordingly. As a result, NK is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power and who knows what that might entail. BTW, did you all know that Clinton threatened war with NK in 93 because they dropped out of the NPT? |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
Ele, our relationship with DPNK was outlined in the "framework agreement" in 1994. Parts of it had been in effect until 2002 and then was aparantly abandoned by both sides. quote: You seem to be trying to consistently spin that all breeches were caused by NK
Did you read the part where congress didn't fund their part of the reactors that had been promised in the agreement? With respect to the agreement itself, both sides left some things off the table. It's not spin, it's history. Personally, I think the Framework agreement was flawed from the beginning. I don't think that you can bribe a nation into behaving like you want them to behave which is what the agreement did with promises of reactors and heavy oil. In addition, consensus building within our own government should come into play when forging financial agreements with foreign nations.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Ele, our relationship with DPNK was outlined in the "framework agreement" in 1994. Parts of it had been in effect until 2002 and then was aparantly abandoned by both sides.
Thanks for the info Sawdust. But, I am wondering why this thread seems to be considering the latest agreement to be of no importance. It seems to me that latest actions and reactions would have more to do with latest agreements, or at the very least something to do with them. And on that one NK had little time to break it as the US did so in 4 days. eley
"Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground"--Sweet Baby James
|
| |
| Posts: 1979 | Location: Texas | Registered: 21 August 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: Sorry to again rely on Leon Segal, but he commented on that yesterday. He said the "axis of evil" comments had no effect on NK. He said NK itself uses such language so they shrug it off. What matters most to them (and the USA) is "actions".
strawberry, i have to disagree with you on this one. if what matters most to them is 'actions' then NK has every right to be worried. right after the axis of evil speech, what 'action' did we take against one of the axis of evil? thats right, we invaded it. actions do speak louder than words and the previous 'actions' of our president seem to point at a looming military confrontaion with NK. if no military action is planned, why is Article 7 (which allows for military action) being included in the U.N. resolution? is that directly contrary to what both Bush AND Rice have said recently?
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sawdust:
Did you read the part where congress didn't fund their part of the reactors that had been promised in the agreement?
OK. I missed it.
Personally, I think the Framework agreement was flawed from the beginning.
nothing is perfect. And every admin has flubbed this NK issue. Had the GOP supported Clinton's framework, we'd at least know one way or another years ago whether war was the only way to deal with stopping NK's nuclear ambitions.
I don't think that you can bribe a nation into behaving like you want them to behave which is what the agreement did with promises of reactors and heavy oil.
NK already had the ability to build uranium reactors with the help of China, Pakistan, Russia. WE went to them and asked them to switch to newer plutomium reactors that made it more difficult them to weaponize their fissile materials. THEY said, OK, we'll dimantle the old reactors and give you the old uranium if YOU help us build the newer reactors. WE then reneged. This is not bribery, though elements of bribery have indeed entered the affair since then.
As a minimum, I think NK genuinely wants to use nuclear energy for electricity. Hence they are determined to build nuclear capacity.
The question is whether NK is also determined to build nuclear weapons even if we negotiate a disarmament agreement. If they are, then either we attack or we bribe. I prefer we try to bribe before we attack, because after all, we have used bribery extensively in the past with other countries and we have even given many economic assistance to many countries simply on the basis of compassion. As of yet, we have not carried thru with our attempts to bribe NK because we have not honored the major points of any agreements.
In addition, consensus building within our own government should come into play when forging financial agreements with foreign nations.
I agree. But don't hold your breathe. One need only look at how Bush humiliated the SK leader in 2001 when he unilaterally refused to sign the accords that were negotiated earlier between all parties. That is not a sign by Bush of a willingness to cooperate with anyone but his own advisors.
|
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman: quote: Sorry to again rely on Leon Segal, but he commented on that yesterday. He said the "axis of evil" comments had no effect on NK. He said NK itself uses such language so they shrug it off. What matters most to them (and the USA) is "actions".
strawberry, i have to disagree with you on this one. if what matters most to them is 'actions' then NK has every right to be worried. right after the axis of evil speech, what 'action' did we take against one of the axis of evil? thats right, we invaded it. actions do speak louder than words and the previous 'actions' of our president seem to point at a looming military confrontaion with NK. if no military action is planned, why is Article 7 (which allows for military action) being included in the U.N. resolution? is that directly contrary to what both Bush AND Rice have said recently?
I agree. Our invasion of Iraq has in fact affected our situation with NK. First, NK was reportedly worried about a CLinton attack in the early 90s, when Clinton threatened an attack, and they forthwith began negotiating with us. Second, NK does not seem concerned about an attack right now because we are entrenched in Iraq, so Bush's "all options" threats are empty rhetoric is as much as NK doesn't think Bush has the political capital or capability to attack right now. Yes, NK is indeed worried about an eventual US attack, but not right now. They are attempting to build nukes while we are distracted now so that they can later shrug off further US threats later on. Bush's "wait till they collapse" strategy is falling into NK's hands. Bush is intentionally risking allowing NK to become nuclear capable in the hope they collapse first. The GOP loved the "Reagan killed the USSR" myth, and that is why they fought Clinton in the 90s over NK, and why Bush is holding out now. The GOP/Bush want to say "we killed NK", but if they think if we negotiate a peace with them, then Kim Jung Il stays in power, and the GOP can't say they killed NK. Again, this naive strategy is risking NK becoming fully nuclear capable before NK collapses (which I don't think will ever happen so long as China and Russia are their allies). I think Bush's recent no-talk strategy is intentionally designed to allow NK to make steps toward nuclear capability so that Bush can then have the high-ground after a NK nuke test when he asks the UN Security Council to finally impose true sanctions on NK. Recently Bush asked the Security Council to do exatcly that, and guess what? China and Russia aint gonna play ball. Niether will SK. SK values its trading with NK and will not agree to sanctions IMHO. Hence, Bush is allowing NK to progress toward nuclear capability without having any chance to affect regime-change (unless a miracle happens and Kim dies and a pro-American leader takes over, though that could have happened even with a sane approach). Bush is in it for the glory. This is why he also makes bold statements like "terrorism is the defining moment of our generation" (because he loves all that WWII glory achieved by Us leaders back then) and why he says "We are going to Mars" (because he liked the way Kennedy got all the moon-landing credit). His NK strategy takes risks in the hope Kim dies or his country collapses dureing his admin so he can claim he is great like reagan. Bush is as dangerous as Kim. |
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
|
|
i agree with most of your statements there strawberry. at the present time, since we are stuck in the quagmire known as iraq, we DONT have the military capacity to invade NK even if we wanted to. and if the us military is going to be in iraq until at least 2010, as our military leaders have recently said, that gives NK 4 FULL more years to upgrade and increase its nuclear program. Bush's wishful thinking that NK will just collapse like the soviet union is akin to our policy with cuba. we have been 'waiting' for cuba to collapse for how many decades now? the same will hold true for NK. Kim Jung's successor to the leadership role of NK is just as hardlined as he is and theres no chance of policy change even after Kim Jung dies. i think that Article 7 is being included in the U.N. proposal so that way, after we FINALLY get out of iraq and when we have a democratic president in power, the gop can say "hey the U.N. resolution allowed for miliarty action, but yet the democractic president has done nothing to stop the NK threat." i know this is way into the future, but i can realisticly see the go proclaiming it. after all, they still blame the democrat 'peaceniks' for our failure in vietnam, saying the lack of public support eroded our will to fight. quite contrary, the peace movement only showed that the majority of people in this nation was against the war to begin with.
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
good point about cuba. I forgot about that.
|
| |
| Posts: 1741 | Location: Florida | Registered: 19 March 2006 | |
|
Moderator
|
| |
