But we didn’t know that until a few months ago did we ? What do you suppose was the rational basis for the U.S. refusal to talk earlier ? That’s not a rhetorical question.
That the North Koreans wanted to negotiate their getting nuclear weapons.
Regards,
Shodan
The U.S. knew it a long time ago, Squink. They just didn’t have public confirmation until recently.
Uh huh. :rolleyes: Secret knowledge; that’s a mighty convenient excuse for a massive policy failure like this. Has the admin publicly claimed that they got information on the NPRK’s secret nuke program from Clinton, or are you just speculatively giving them the benefit of the doubt again ?
In dealing with such an unpredictable situation, I think we should not be so quick to assign blame. This could have happened if we had been meeting with them weekly. On the other hand, maybe it could have been avoided. Is it crazy to assume that everything is not within our control?
With hindsight it is easy to say that the “axis of evil” remark may have escalated all of this. Then again, isn’t there a possibility that NK could have responded in a way that said, “hey this guy means business. let’s cool it for a bit”. Seems like it’s kind of a gamble.
I think meeting with them and establishing some sort of contact would put us in a better position to guess what they may do next.
US thinks North Korea could produce as many as 50 nukes a year if all three frozen reactors are restarted. Cite
And do what with them? Nuke the US? Massive retaliation, utter destruction. Nuke Japan? Ditto. Nuke SK? Probably ditto.
Ugly fact we might as well get used to right now: anybody, and I mean anybody who really wants to make nukes can. Including Belgium, Nigeria, Syria, etc. The genie is out of the bottle.
We either start thinking planetary, or we’re done. That’s it. I would even prefer a planetary imperium, run by the US, to the continuance of international squabbles with the deadliest weapons ever. I don’t think that’s feasible. Which leaves only one other alternative, an actual, honest to goodness UN, one that the US defers to, rather than vice versa.
Gonna be a real hard sell, the hawks have thier own dreams, very unlike my own. But down that road lies doom.
Many of us said that at the time the remark was made, and have continued to say it ever since. The Clinton policies got us through 6 years without a major debacle. On the other hand Bush’s policies have brought us back to the brink of war in little less than two years time. No hindsight is needed to see that. This happened on Bush’s watch because of Bush’s inadequate containment policy. That’s where the buck stops.
What about this makes me uncomfortable? Not that people are clamoring about thinking about my level of comfort. 
I think this is unfair.
The North Koreans were building nukes in direct violation of the treaty they signed with the Clinton administration, beginning shortly after they signed it. The fact that it wasn’t publicly discussed is hardly avoiding a major debacle.
The major debacle is that the North Koreans have not been prevented from developing nukes. This occurred under the Clinton administration, but it was confirmed under the Bush one.
To be fair, Bush is being confronted with the same issue now as Clinton was then, except that it is much clearer now that the North Koreans will not abide by their agreements.
It was certainly a major problem then, just as it is a major problem now. I will for once try to refrain from Clinton-bashing (heck, it’s Christmas), and say that Clinton tried - and failed - to deal with a problem that Bush will have to try to deal with.
But I would agree that this is a problem at least on the same scale as Iraq. And evidence that Bush’s “axis of evil” speech was right on the money. North Korea is doing what Saddam will do if he ever gets functional nukes.
And elucidator, an honest question. What would you say a genuine UN, to which the US defers, would do in the North Korean situation? There are madmen with nukes on the Korean peninsula - what would they do?
As I said, an honest question. Because maybe Bush and the UN as it exists now can do it.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Merry Christmas to all!
Approach the question with as much delicacy as possible. If this seems to the hawkish to be Chamberlainesque, so be it. There is a bit of damage control to be done, for starters.
A few weeks back, 60 Minutes ran a bit of knee-padding from Mr. Woodward about GeeDubya, where he is quoted as saying he actually “hates” Kim Jong-Il. I have no doubt that the paranoid and delusional KJ took notice. That will have to be explained away, for starters. Why it was said in the first place I can only wonder.
Then pointedly butt out. We dont have to directly negotiate, just keep an interested eye on the proceedings between the Koreas. If there is any possibility of a rapprochment, that needs to be explored and encouraged.
But for Chrissake, no more belligerant posturing!
As to a UN aspect: the best display might be to have the UN disagree with the US on some, preferably minor, point and have the US defer to the authority of the UN. This will put things on both a firmer and a more nuetral ground.
We must begin to dismantle the world view that has the US as owning the planet, and everyone else just lives here at our sufferance.
Prove it.
Even if your allegation were true, what good has it done us to confront the bastards with it ? We already knew they couldn’t be trusted. How does it make things better to shout that from the rooftops and sing it in the streets ? We’ve certainly managed to provoke them into restarting their reactors. Is that somehow a good thing ?
Would you advocate continuing to supply the fuel oil and food to encourage the North Koreans to use nuclear power for electricity, or do we drop that as well?
And do we express any opinions on what kind of circumstances re-unification takes place under? We have a good number of military stationed in South Korea. Should we leave them in place? Or would pulling them seem to be giving a go-ahead for invasion?
What do you think the North Koreans are working towards? What is their end goal?
Again, these are serious questions.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Please don’t think me rude if I don’t return to this thread for a bit. Guests are due here shortly, and I have to start the turkey. Again, Merry Christmas/Happy New Year/happy non-sectarian winter festival of your own choice to the board.
Especially Polycarp.
You rude bastard! How dare you insinutate that you place friends and family above the Board! I’ve had quite enough of your impertinence, sir! My second shall call on you presently,
As to our troop presence, it seems as if our SK allies might be amenable to a withdrawal, or at least a drastic reduction in troop level. If this is agreeable to them, without undue rancor, so much the better: the less we have at risk, the less likelihood of things spinning out of control, Guns of August style.
We need to present as pacific a face as is possible under the circumstances. As galling as it may be, we need to at least pretend that we take thier accusations of treaty broaching seriously, perhaps an offer to submit the matter to arbitration.
As sacrifice in dignity is far superior to a sacrifice in blood, ours or thiers.
If the United States has nuclear weapons then why can’t North Korea?
elucidator:
**
The problem, of course, are those pesky folks such as Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, et al.
They don’t “think planetary.”
Sept. 11, 2001, showed the U.S. what can happen when it simply hopes madmen won’t attack, or assumes they can’t because they haven’t.
Many people learned that lesson the hard way, Bush obviously included. Incredibly to me, others, including about four of you in this thread, haven’t.
But the U.N. has proven itself to be a toothless wonder over and over again. That’s the real problem. George Bush wouldn’t have to be dealing with Iraq and North Korea if the U.N. just did its damned job. But it has a habit of issuing proclamations and resolutions, then doing nothing when they are flagrantly abused or disregarded.
George Bush has offered the U.N. a new respectibility and strength, if they choose to take it. He has shown himself more than willing to work with the U.N. if it will actually take some action. Maybe it will finally get the message and take a hard line against Saddam and North Korea. But frankly, I think the U.N. is top-heavy with appeasers and diplomats, and has a back-bench consisting of mostly the countries that need to be brought back into line. It’s not set up very well to really be a force for good these days.
But it has a chance. George Bush has given it to them. If the U.N. waffles now in the face of the biggest dangers the world faces since the cold war, the U.S. and Britain will act without it, Russia will join in, and the U.N. will instantly become the new League of Nations.
Then the U.S. will build a new coalition, perhaps using NATO, or perhaps rebuilding the U.N. from the ground up or something. Because a world organization that settles disputes between countries is a good thing. But it has to do the job. The U.N. isn’t doing it.
GeeDubya offered the UN his way or the highway. Suggesting he is somehow “empowering” the UN by demanding that it accede to his wishes is absurd. Now, if the UN were to say “No” to war, and GeeDubya were to say “OK, we disagree, but you’re the boss” that would be quite a different kettle of fish. I daresay none here think that likely.
The right in America has long sought to undermine and erode the UN. Are they toothless? Well, yes, pretty much. But a public bitch-slapping by the President of the US seems unlikely to foster much respect.
Bush learned nothing about how to conduct foreign policy from 9/11:
Herblock-8/26/01
It may be a different world, but it’s the same old Bush.