North Korea Agrees to end Nuke Program

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://www.whyy.org/tv12/franklinfacts/apr0402_4.jpg

 

Just to add some further perspective to this madness, here's a nightime satellite image of this country everyone is so scared of. Notice anything interesting?

[2GOLD 0]

Only one light on in the whole country? Wow, thats pretty impressive conservation of electric.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yep, that's Pyongyang. That's the only part of the country running electricity at night (at least any noticable amount). The wonders of the socialist system in action. Yet their dictator is practically holding the entire world hostage right now. It's just pathetic that we're kow-towing to this postage stamp mudhole on the map.

[SuperJerk 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

[snuffbox 0]

Kim Jong Il (D-NK)

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Time to act is now. I'd rather see 100,000 dead North Koreans than Seoul bombed off the map, or 1 American soldier die.

 

I'm sick of treating our enemies with kid gloves. If they want to hate America, that's fine. We should at least make them fear us as well.

 

Wow, you're fucking crazy. Really. You are. With an attitude like that you'd be best friends with KJI in no time..

 

What have I said that's actually wrong? I feel like I'm the only realist in this conversation. At least I'd rather not see North Korea sell a nuclear weapon to Al Quaeda and have it go off in a an American city. Are we supposed to just wait around for our enemies to destroy us or what?

 

We haven't done a single thing wrong to North Korea, but they hate us anyway. Why bother trying to negotiate with them? They've had enough opportunities to stop their program (which the entire world, even China, wants them to stop...it's not just us), but they continue. When do the limp wristed discussions end?

 

Just so I understand, your solution is to attack North Korea right now? Drop a nuke on the country right now?

 

What's scary about your post is how rational you are about what is essentilaly the murder of millions.

 

I complain enough about the Bush adminstration, but sometimes someone like you just reminds me it could be far worse. We could actually have evil people in charge instead of well-meaning people who just can't do things right. Everyone else, just think about how scary it would be if people in the White House were drawing up plans to NUKE north korea right now.

 

You feel like you're the only realist? That's hilarious, because your view is EXTREMIST. then again all extremists think they are normal.

 

Republicans would recoil at the thought of dropping a nuke on N Korea tomorrow, and it wouldn't be just because of "political correctness" or the influence of the limp-wristed gang who arent even in power in a single govt branch. I'd wager most right wingers realize its a horrific idea. As much shite as someone like me might complain about the Bush adminsitration, I have NO DOUBT in my mind if someone told Bush "hey guess what, one of our planes with nukes just took off by himself and is gonna drop nukes on North Korea in 30 minutes", that Bush would be horrifed. Rumsfeld would be horrifed. Cheney would be horrifed (err i hope). Rice would be horrified. despite their bluster, i believe the oreillys and hannitys would be also. Ehh maybe Michael Savage would be cheering it on.

[Guest CWMwasmurdered]

Making people fear you only works for so long. Eventually like an abused wife they'll knife you when you're not looking. Nations that the Americans try to strike fear upon will sooner or later build their own Nukes because once they can threaten America with annihilation, then they won't have anything to fear from America.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

After six years of the anti-Bush crowd blaming the President for everything, even the wind blowing the wrong way, you don't get to make that joke.

[Guest Felonies!]

Hey, impressive shot of the LA Coliseum. Too bad they couldn't fill the place up like that for pro football.

[snuffbox 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

After six years of the anti-Bush crowd blaming the President for everything, even the wind blowing the wrong way, you don't get to make that joke.

 

Somebody missed the 1990s.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm not saying we should immediately drop a nuke. I'm saying we should remind them that we have the capability of wiping them off the map. It should be our country holding the cards, not them.

 

This will ultimately require re-assessing US military presence in Iraq and elsewhere. Also, we should pull troops and cut spending from countries that don't respect us. (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).

[vivalaultra 0]

So, I wake up this morning to see that Kim Jong Il is saying that any US sanctions will be considered an "act of war" and I hear we have a press conference set for 11 AM. Oh boy....It seems like only yesterday we were going to war with Iraq...and the day before that with Afghanistan...

[Cartman 0]

The American public would not stand for us attacking North Korea now or ever. Because the minute the troop death numbers get above 100, which would be in the first hour or less if we went after them, they would turn on the attack and it would turn into a political selling point for one of the parties leading to us pulling out.

 

War of any kind is no longer an option unless they blow up one of our cities. And even then, the country would turn when the numbers touched the the high 1000's line. Vietnam forever changed this countries opinion on war. It is never worth it when a life is loss. The majority of our public is taking on a "not our problem" attitude, which is never a right attitude to take to World Affairs but its one the country wants to take.

 

The reality is the only people who can do anything about North Korea are the rest of the UN and they aren't interested. And we damn sure won't go after Iran or North Korea NOW even after we leave the Iraqi hellhole.

 

The "Americal Public" is the same body of idiocy that elected the man in charge right now. Not to mention the main reason there is so much outcry over the death toll in Iraq is that NOBODY believes we should be there in the first place.

[Special K 0]

O|X|O

-------

O|X|O

-------

X|O|X

 

*Beep boop*

 

Conclusion: The game cannot be won.

 

Solution: can't be limp-wristed. That implies gay. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I'm not saying we should immediately drop a nuke. I'm saying we should remind them that we have the capability of wiping them off the map. It should be our country holding the cards, not them.

 

This will ultimately require re-assessing US military presence in Iraq and elsewhere. Also, we should pull troops and cut spending from countries that don't respect us. (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).

 

how exactly do we remind them without launching a devestating attack?

 

We can't start making outright threats if we're not willing or able to follow it up.

 

I'd agree that the simple act of having our armed forces free and clear of the middle east quagmires and messes sends a subtle sort of "indirect message" that we are capable again. No doubt people like Jong Il (and probably Ahmemajad) are emboldened with the knowledge that a lot of our military capability is "busy" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

however i'm not in support of any sort of pre-emptive offensive attack on civilians.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I'm not saying we should immediately drop a nuke. I'm saying we should remind them that we have the capability of wiping them off the map. It should be our country holding the cards, not them.

 

This will ultimately require re-assessing US military presence in Iraq and elsewhere. Also, we should pull troops and cut spending from countries that don't respect us. (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).

 

how exactly do we remind them without launching a devestating attack?

 

We can't start making outright threats if we're not willing or able to follow it up.

 

I'd agree that the simple act of having our armed forces free and clear of the middle east quagmires and messes sends a subtle sort of "indirect message" that we are capable again. No doubt people like Jong Il (and probably Ahmemajad) are emboldened with the knowledge that a lot of our military capability is "busy" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

however i'm not in support of any sort of pre-emptive offensive attack on civilians.

 

Well, then what do we do? Just lie back and let North Korea continue developing weapons? I've seen zero alternative suggestions offered so far.

 

This is a matter that has to be dealt with. It won't just go away on its own.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Well, I'm still not sure what it is you're proposing when you say "remind them we have the capability to wipe them off the earth" or something.

 

You said you weren't talking about nuking N Korea... so...

 

What exactly are you proposing then? Conventional warfare? Raining missiles down on the cities? Pinpointing their nuclear sites and hitting those (I wouldn't necessarily be against the latter)? What?

 

I mean, any direct military action other than instant genocide probably equals South Korea and Japan getting flattened, and China doing god knows what, and once you have the US and the entire area (including China) fighting, it's basically open world war 3.

[NoCalMike 0]

Bush's Tough-Talkin' Korean Bungle

By Robert Parry

October 10, 2006

 

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/101006.html

 

Months before 9/11 and the “global war on terror” – and two years before the Iraq War – George W. Bush tested out his tough-talkin’ diplomacy on communist North Korea. Bush combined harsh rhetoric and intimidating tactics to demonstrate to Pyongyang that there was a swaggering new sheriff in town.

 

In his first weeks in office, Bush cast aside the Clinton administration’s delicate negotiations that had hemmed in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The new President then brushed aside worries of Secretary of State Colin Powell and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung about dangerous consequences from a confrontation.

 

At a March 2001 summit, Bush rejected Kim Dae Jung’s détente strategy for dealing with North Korea, a humiliation for both Kim, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Powell, who wanted to continue pursuing the negotiation track. Instead, Bush cut off nuclear talks with North Korea and stepped up spending on a “Star Wars” missile shield.

 

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush got tougher still, vowing to “rid the world of evil” and listing North Korea as part of the “axis of evil.”

 

More substantively, Bush sent to Congress a “nuclear posture review,” which laid out future U.S. strategy for deploying nuclear weapons. Leaked in 2002, the so-called NPR put North Korea on a list of potential targets for U.S. nuclear weapons.

 

The Bush administration also discussed lowering the threshold for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons by making low-yield tactical nukes available for some battlefield situations.

 

By putting North Korea on the nuclear target list, Bush reversed President Clinton’s commitment against targeting non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons. Clinton’s idea was that a U.S. promise not to nuke non-nuclear states would reduce their incentives for joining the nuclear club.

 

But to Bush and his neoconservative advisers, Clinton’s assurance that non-nuclear states wouldn’t be nuked was just another example of Clinton’s appeasement of U.S. adversaries. By contrast, Bush was determined to bring these “evil” states to their knees.

 

In March 2002, however, Pyongyang signaled how it would react, warning of “strong countermeasures” against Bush’s nuclear policy shifts.

 

North Korea accused the Bush administration of “an inhuman plan to spark a global nuclear arms race” and warned that it would “not remain a passive onlooker” after being put on the Pentagon’s list of nuclear targets.

 

A commentary by the official Korean Central News Agency cited Bush’s threat in the context of the U.S. nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945.

 

“If the U.S. intends to mount a nuclear attack on any part of the D.P.R.K. [North Korea] just as it did on Hiroshima, it is grossly mistaken,” the communiqué read.

 

In March 2002, the New York Times reported that “North Korea threatened … to withdraw from the [1994 nuclear suspension] agreement if the Bush administration persisted with what North Korea called a ‘hard-line’ policy that differed from the Clinton administration’s approach. North Korea also renewed its complaints against delays in construction of two nuclear reactors promised in the 1994 agreement to fulfill its energy needs.” [NYT, March 14, 2002]

 

The North Koreans were telegraphing how they would respond to Bush’s nuclear saber-rattling. They would create a nuclear threat of their own.

 

But Bush was in no mood to seek accommodation with North Korea. During one lectern-pounding tirade before congressional Republicans in May 2002, Bush denounced North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Il as a “pygmy” and “a spoiled child at a dinner table,” Newsweek magazine reported.

 

Clearly, North Korea was on Bush’s menu for “regime change,” but it wasn’t the first course. The “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive wars was to have its first test in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein, along with his two sons and top associates, would face elimination.

 

Worrying Signs

 

By early July 2002, U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up evidence that North Korea had acquired key equipment for enriching uranium.

 

“On Sept. 12, [2002], the same day Mr. Bush addressed the U.N. about the dangers posed by Iraq, the President met quietly in New York with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to brief him on the U.S. intelligence findings about North Korea,” the Wall Street Journal reported. [WSJ, Oct. 18, 2002]

 

In early October 2002, U.S. diplomats confronted Pyongyang with this evidence and were surprised when North Korean leaders admitted that they were working on building nuclear weapons.

 

Despite North Korea’s public warnings seven months earlier, official Washington was stunned. Many analysts puzzled over what might have caused Pyongyang to violate its earlier promises about suspending its nuclear program and then admit to it. Bush formally canceled the 1994 agreement.

 

For its part, North Korea issued a press release at the United Nations on Oct. 25, 2002, explaining its reasoning. The statement cited both Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric and the administration’s decision to target North Korea for a possible preemptive nuclear strike.

 

“This was a clear declaration of war against the D.P.R.K. as it totally nullified” the 1994 agreement, the North Korean statement read. “Nobody would be so naïve as to think that the D.P.R.K. would sit idle under such a situation. … The D.P.R.K., which values sovereignty more than life, was left with no other proper answer to the U.S. behaving so arrogantly and impertinently.”

 

Bush’s supporters blamed North Korea’s defiance on Clinton, arguing that his 1994 agreement to stop North Korea’s nuclear program was too weak. According to aides, Bush said he would never go down the path of compromise that Clinton followed. North Korea “would not be rewarded for bad behavior,” Bush aides told reporters. [NYT, Oct. 26, 2002]

 

Amid Bush’s stratospheric poll numbers in fall 2002, few Washington voices dared challenge the Bush administration’s finger-pointing at Clinton.

 

Iraq Lesson

 

What then happened in Iraq only reinforced North Korea’s thinking. Despite Saddam Hussein’s assurances that he had no weapons of mass destruction and his granting permission to U.N. inspectors to search any suspicious site, Bush simply ignored the U.N.’s negative findings and invaded anyway on March 19, 2003.

 

Within three weeks, U.S. forces routed the overmatched Iraqi army and toppled Hussein’s government. Later, Hussein’s two sons were hunted down and killed by U.S. troops, and the Iraqi dictator was captured.

 

Humiliating photos of Hussein being examined by doctors and sitting in his underwear were distributed around the world. He was then put on trial in Iraq – rather than before an international tribunal at The Hague – so the proceedings could end with his execution by hanging, an expected outcome that Bush relished.

 

The war’s consequences for Iraqis over the past 3 ½ years also have been horrific. Tens of thousands of Iraqis – men, women and children – have died; the once-prosperous country has sunk into chaos and poverty; ethnic cleansing and a bloody civil war have begun.

 

While Bush may have intended the Iraq War to be an object lesson about the futility of defying his will, some American adversaries learned something else – that disarmament and cooperation with the U.N. are for suckers.

 

After all, Hussein had complied with U.N. demands for eliminating his stockpiles of unconventional weapons and had forsaken active development of nuclear weapons. He even agreed to unfettered U.N. inspections.

 

Hussein’s reward was to see his two sons killed, his country ravaged, and the almost certain end of his own life coming as he dangles from the end of a rope, rather than his request that he die before a firing squad.

 

So, instead of cowering before Bush and his Doctrine, North Korea pressed ahead with its nuclear program, claiming to have detonated a small nuclear device on Oct. 9.

 

U.S. Reaction

 

Bush responded to the news with more threats and more tough rhetoric, calling the explosion a “provocative act” and “a threat to international peace and security.”

 

For their part, Democrats argued that Bush’s Iraq War had distracted the United States from addressing the worse threat from North Korea.

 

“What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the ‘axis of evil’” said former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia. “We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that.” [NYT, Oct. 10, 2006]

 

Another lesson that could be drawn from Bush’s cowboy rhetoric is that tough-talkin’ diplomacy may play well with loudmouth TV pundits, newspaper columnists and radio hosts. But it doesn’t necessarily serve America’s national security interests very well.

 

In a Consortiumnews.com story entitled “Deeper Into the Big Muddy,” published nearly four years ago on Oct. 27, 2002, I wrote:

 

“As world leaders have known for centuries, belligerent words and bellicose actions can have real consequences. Sometimes, potential enemies take hostile gestures more seriously than they are meant and events spiral out of control. That’s what appears to have happened with North Korea’s nuclear-bomb program. …

 

“Potential enemies may come to think that the best way to protect their nations against Bush’s unilateralist policies and threats of invasions is to quickly add a nuclear bomb or two to the arsenal.”

 

In the past four years, Bush’s tough-talkin’ diplomacy has led the United States ever deeper – now neck deep – into the “big muddy.”

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So in a nutshell what Invader is saying is that since he or anyone else on the right-wing side of things can't think of anything blowing them up is the only option. You'd think he throw his support behind an admin he had a bit more faith in.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think what Invader is really saying is that he's frustrated with the idea of diplomacy and wants some action on our part regarding our real enemies rather than dicking around and trying to work the nation-building hustle that our President said would be taboo in his foreign policy so he could get elected. It's an understandable stance, but this really is a situation where military action is one of the least desirable endings for all sides. International posturing has never been America's bag. We're all about action.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, I guess that is basically what I was trying to say. Thanks for that one.

 

I admit to not having a good answer...it just frustrates me that we're supposed to be a super power, but really can't act like it anymore, mainly due to Bush's War in Iraq.

[Special K 0]

I remember the talk of deploying bunker-busters. God, why even chance using nuclear weapons just to gain a minor tactical advantage?

[SuperJerk 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

After six years of the anti-Bush crowd blaming the President for everything, even the wind blowing the wrong way, you don't get to make that joke.

 

After 13 years of Clinton getting blamed for everything by YOUR side, I certainly DO get to make that joke.

[Guest Felonies!]

Hey Spicy and Y2Jerk, you're a bunch of dontsuspendmes.

[snuffbox 0]

I enjoyed that one.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, I guess that is basically what I was trying to say. Thanks for that one.

It's cool, some of us have been spoiled in the last several years by the maverick "we're comin' to getcha!" attitude and forgot that's not how things are supposed to be done in order to make this place better.

 

I just like to think that the greatest weapon that terrorist organizations and rogue states possess is the ability to make us bicker like dumbasses, as Czech pointed out. That's what makes us a superpower, the ability to be our own worst enemy AND be comfortable at the same time.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

After six years of the anti-Bush crowd blaming the President for everything, even the wind blowing the wrong way, you don't get to make that joke.

 

After 13 years of Clinton getting blamed for everything by YOUR side, I certainly DO get to make that joke.

1. What side is it that I'm on?

 

2. I have never blamed Clinton for anything he did not deserve blame for. Lewinsky, Bosnia... I did not blame him. Lying under oath, sending Jimmy Carter to negotiate, selling military tech, neutering our human intelligence, not responding to the USS Cole... you bet he deserves blame. All of it? No. His share? Absolutely.

[SuperJerk 0]

Somehow this is going to end up being Bill Clinton's fault.

After six years of the anti-Bush crowd blaming the President for everything, even the wind blowing the wrong way, you don't get to make that joke.

 

After 13 years of Clinton getting blamed for everything by YOUR side, I certainly DO get to make that joke.

1. What side is it that I'm on?

 

What side you're on? Well, apparently you're on the side that tells people they're not allowed to make jokes that make fun of Clinton's attackers!

 

And don't pretend like you're some kind of fair-minded independent. There's an electronic record of your right-wing leanings in this forum's archives that goes back for years.

 

2. I have never blamed Clinton for anything he did not deserve blame for. Lewinsky, Bosnia... I did not blame him. Lying under oath, sending Jimmy Carter to negotiate, selling military tech, neutering our human intelligence, not responding to the USS Cole... you bet he deserves blame. All of it? No. His share? Absolutely.

 

First of, all the fuck did this become about YOU? "I have never blamed..." Yeah...except THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU. In the post that started this argument (which is quoted above), I never mentioned YOU. And yet here you are acting like this whole discussion has been a personal assault on YOUR record. No, I was talking IN GENERAL about those people who hate Bill Clinton. I've repeated condemned guys like John Ashcroft, who lie in front of the 9/11 commision and say Clinton was entirely to blame, and pretend all the anti-terrorist activities of the Clinton Administration never existed.

 

Second, saying you don't blame Clinton for Bosnia is like saying you don't blame Abe Lincoln for slavery. Clinton ended a problem that started while Bush Sr. was in office. There's simply no reason to blame him for it, so don't expect credit for not doing it.

 

Saying you blame Clinton for not responding to the USS Cole is ridicules, though. That happened 3 months before he left office, and they didn't find out who did it until after Bush's inauguration.

Why didn't Bush respond to the USS Cole bombing?

 

Clinton wasn't responsible for selling military tech, nor was he responsible for "neutering" intelligence (blame the Republican Congress for that one). What you blame him for is inverifiable propaganda that got repeated so many times by Republican hacks like Hannity and Limbaugh your sides thinks its true.

[Art Sandusky 0]

BOOM

[Guest Felonies!]

And don't pretend like you're some kind of fair-minded independent. There's an electronic record of your right-wing leanings in this forum's archives that goes back for years.

This sounds so sinister.