Our president has told the world that North Korea is an evil empire, part of an Axis Of Evil. None of these countries seem to be allied to me (I could be wrong) like Germany and Japan were during WWII, but that’s beside the point. One of his advisors thought it was good foreign policy for the president to make such an inflammatory remark to the world community at what seems the worst possible time. Weeks pass and our leader refuses any dialogue with the North until they stop and dismantle their nuclear program. Now, out of the blue, our leader wants to talk, perhaps out of fear that Pyongyang is in a corner and is serious about all out war.
Did he waffle? Is this cause for worry? Will China help curb this insanity, or will they sit by and allow us to get involved in two simultaneous wars so they can do their bidding elsewhere while we’re tied up. Finally, did the president take into account the cost of one and possibly two wars in his economic stimulus plan?
As a father of two draftable sons, I’m scared shitless of this guy’s foreign policies.
Hmmm, apparently you missed this thread, wherein it was decided that any criticism of the Bush administration’s North Korea policies are highly partisan and an underhanded and dishonest Democratic scheme designed to discredit the President.
squeegeeI’m starting to hate it because it’s turning into the land of the somewhat free and home of the brave someone else’s kids. Allow me to misquote Ben Franklin.
or something to that effect.
And I ignore threads started by certain posters. I’m sure it was very entertaining.
I am of course pleased that the Administration has seen the clarity of my position, and is behaving accordingly. I heartily commend GeeDubya for grasping the glaringly obvious, and trust that it is a harbinger of better days to come.
If by “since 1994” you mean “after June 2002”, you are correct. However, the mere existence of a program now, does not prove that your fears had any basis in fact throughout most of the 90’s. If you, or anyone else, had such proof in say 1995, why then didn’t anyone mention it at the time ? Or at the very least why hasn’t that evidence been produced in the years since Bush’s innauguration ?
Hmm, I wouldn’t say ‘waffle’. I believe the expression is “blink”. The Bush admin blinked.
One might wonder if another father-son talk finally took place. The present hubbub looks darned similar to the last time the Bush administration ‘blinked’ over N. Korea. Perhaps Bush Sr. took a hand again (at last).
—And, we now know that they have been lying to the world and secretly developing a nuclear program since 1994. In short, Bush was right. They are evil.—
My astrology told me I’d meet a someone today… and what do you know: I did! If Bush really had some idea back then of WHAT North Korea was doing, it might have been nice for him to inform the people in charge of policing nuclear proliferation, instead of giving cryptic, bombastic hints about evilness. The accidental truth of an assertion is no credit to the one who makes it.
What ** Apos ** said. From the number of times Bush has spoken of how “he starves his own folks” I can reasonably guess he used the phrase “Axis of Evil” in that context.
Insane Dictator – Saddam, Check! Kim, Check!
Weapons of Mass Destruction – Saddam (we say so), Check! Kim (he says so), Check!
Axis of Evil? – Check! Check!
Killing his own people – Gas, Check! Starvation, Check!
Hell, seems to me that North Korea should be invaded too. Lets go!
What, you mean this isn’t going to be a walk over like Iraq? Hrm, we better rethink this moral imperative thing then. We should only do the right thing if its easy to do. Thats it.
You know, this argument doesn’t get any less stupid every time it’s repeated. This idea that it’s somehow wrong to attack Iraq if you can’t attack North Korea at the same time is just loopy. It’s like saying we couldn’t go after North Korea in 1950 because the Soviet Union was more dangerous, or that you can’t spend time busting bank robbers because there are murderers on the street.
There is no doubt that North Korea is a huge problem. It’s no doubt more dangerous to the long-term peace of the world than Iraq. But invading North Korea is almost impossible - those 11,000 artillery tubes pointed at downtown Seoul are a tremendous problem, let alone the nuclear bombs.
But now that you’ve seen how dangerous a rogue state with nukes is, it should be all the more obvious why it’s a good idea to take care of Saddam before he gets nukes of his own.
That’s one way of putting the argument. Here’s another way: You shouldn’t single out a country as a member of an axis of evil, and break off relations, and threaten military action if they restart a program to develop WMDs, and then cherry-pick from that list those countries that are easy to invade. Bush wanted to reverse Clinton’s policy on North Korea and look tough doing it; now the contrast between Iraq and NK is starker–one’s too tough for the U.S. to follow through on the rhetoric.
As one commentator puts it, the U.S. actions under Bush actually encourage rogue states to develop WMDs, since it’s now plain that the U.S. won’t attack a militarily strong rogue state.
The political and military situation is totally different, however. I could not be happier if tommrow Kim Jong-Il and his whole hoard of cronies fell over dead. But invading would face potential nuclear response and Chinese protests, at least.
I think what people like XPav who want us to invade North Korea are missing is the concept of price. Before one undertakes a course of action one must first sit down and weigh the costs. For example if one is hungry and want to make lunch he needs to decide whether to make hamburgers which he can make for $5.00 or he can make lobster stuffed with caviar for $500. Both actions will meet his goal (lunch) but the person needs to determine what he is willing to pay beforehand.
Likewise one counts the cost before deciding to invade a country. In the case of North Korea and Iraq the goal is very similar. One less countries that mistreats its citizens, threatens its neighbours and provides money and weaponry for terrorists. However, the price is different. In Iraq the likely price is the death of a couple hundred soldiers and several billion dollars. In North Korea the price is the death of tens of thousands and possibly millions of people and several billion dollars. A wise leader will weigh the different costs and decide on actions accordingly.
I don’t know which commentator Hansel is referring to but surely the idea that a strong military detterent makes it less likely that a country will be invaded is so blindingly obvious that most rogue states are already aware of it.
Also, if you want lobster, you had also make sure that the locale you are entering does indeed sell lobsters.
Apparently you can also proclaim to the world that this evil hamburger joint is hiding lobsters under the counter.
From what I understand, Bush offered to parley at the behest of South Korea and Japan. Since Japan and especially SK is most at risk, this is a reasonable thing to do, IMO.
It might look like waffling or caving or whatever, but I think one goal it serves is to keep the US in good stead with Japan and SK, which can only benefit the US in the future.
