In October of this year the Stalinistic nation of North Korea admitted that it is pursuing a secret nuclear program, in violation of the 1994 Agreed Framework treaty in Geneva that it signed with the United States.
Now North Korea is shutting off UN cameras mounted at a nuclear development site. The UN deems this movement with “deep regret,” although that seems like a rather weak condemnation for a totalitarian regime violating international treaties to pursue a nuclear research program.
What is to be done with this predicament? Is there any plausible solution, or is non-intervention the best way for the Western world to carry on? Is the US obligated to take action (economically, diplomatically, whatever) in order to attempt to halt this action? Would it be feasible to even attempt such?
Sometimes, when you don’t know what the smart thing to do is, the smart thing is not to do anything. South Korea’s recent elections, with its overtones of impatience with being on America’s leash, might be a golden opportunity. Let the Koreans pursue thier own agenda, which appears to center around a desire for rapproachment, the “Sunshine Policy”. It costs us nothing, and might even work. If we end up removing our troops, so much the better, we have less at risk.
I can’t help but wonder about that 60 Minutes segment a few weeks back, with Woodward knee-padding Our Leader, and the revelation of Bush quotes how he hates Kim Jung-Il viscerally. No better way to treat a psycho paranoid than dash into his room setting off firecrackers and screaming “BOO!”.
Personally, I feel that now the best action from the US would be inaction. Although, I’m sure there are convincing arguments that can assert otherwise.
Well, that may be what the South Koreans want. The North Koreans apparently see the ‘sunshine policy’ as a way to get the heat off them and get the U.S to send its troops home. It’s not clear to me exactly what the North Koreans are up to - primarily because the only one who really matters is Kim Jong-il, and as we all know, he’s nuts.
North Korea is a potentially more serious problem than Iraq. Militarily, it certainly is a more serious problem. Economically, Iraq is a bigger problem because of where it is located.
But the problem is, it’s going to be hard for us to do anything about North Korea, because A) They have nukes, and B) they have China nearby.
Don’t let elucidator try to inject the false dichotomy of North Korea vs Iraq. Different problems, different solutions. Just because we’re going to attack Iraq doesn’t mean we’re wrong for not attacking North Korea, and vice versa.
Curses! Foiled again! Had this false dichotomy, all ready to inject and everything, and Sam, that Canny Canuck, pulls a premptive strike and warns those guillible doofuses at the SDMB before I could slither in!
Well, that does it! I’m not buying any piss-poor beer or seal blubber this year! Let thier economy collapse! See if I care!
No Sam, the South Koreans discontent with the US and president Bush goes deeper than that. Read the article. The administration’s game of carrot and stick with North Korea has employed so little carrot that we’re actively driving the South away from us and towards the axis of evil.
What, as opposed to the big carrots the Clinton adminstration kept offering? That sure worked out well, huh?
The root problem here is not George W. Bush. The root problem is that there is a nutbar in North Korea who is oppressing his own people and threatening his neighbors.
It sure did, and would have continued to do so if Bush hadn’t cut off relations with North Korea the moment he took office. Heck, even his dad told him to go back to the table. What we’re seeing now is just the first fruits this black and white policy debacle. If we keep pushing it, even Japan will start to turn on us. They, like Korea, have valid security concerns that are being seriously aggravated by the president’s hardass approach. Somehow I doubt that Japan will continue to bow down before our desires just because we’re supposed to be the good guys. Sooner or later we must demonstrate how our Korean policy is good for Japan, else they’ll start acting in what they consider to be their own best interest. Like South Korea, they seem to be heading towards rapproachment and engagement. If that happens without us, we’ll end up out in the cold looking foolish.
There couldn’t be a better result. Worse that happens, the USA looks foolish and GeeDubya looks like a stupid iron-ass. But nobody gets killed. I’m strongly in favor of solutions where nobody gets killed.
Bush administration officials have said a lot of things. Other sources don’t always agree with their version of the gospel. From what else I’ve read, it seems that the nukes were likely made prior to the 1994 crisis. IIRC they weren’t asked to give up processed material at that time as there was no way to verify we had gotten it all. There’s also disagreement over wether the program the North admitted to was covered by the 94 agreement.
Spin it however you want. There are two sides to the dispute.
I think, first off, we should get our guys the hell out of there. We can make appropriate face saving gestures, reassure SK of our committment, but indicate that the presence of US troop is too much of a provocation. Which, it is.
Let the Koreans have a shot at working it out. Without our sticking our big noses in.
If NK goes nuts and sets off its nukes, thats bad. Real bad. But if it involves thousands of US troops, America will totally lose it. I dont think we have the self control for a measured response and I fear for the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent NK’s.
This is a very tricky, very dangerous situation. Colin Powell is the man for the job, and nobody else.
To heck with Iraq. Put it on the back burner, forget it, send Saddam bin Laden a Christmas card. This shit is way, way more serious than some dumb fuckwad with a basement full of mustard gas.
Attempting to establish a factual basis for ones opinions by selectively quoting from what is, at best, hearsay, is not any way to establish credibility. I’ve made no attempt to prove truth here. In fact, I’ve no desire to prove the point one way or another. All I wanted to do was point out that differing intepretations of the events are possible. Hence I have no need to come up with hard evidence backing any particular scenario. If Fang does want to establish that the truth is on his side, he damn well better come up with a better argument than:
• An anonymous source from within the administration said it.
• I believe it.
• That settles it.
I find that nearly anything is credible to the credulous. I’d bet good money that the white house knows that as well.