As this 9/26/01 article demonstrates, Bush and friends tried every diplomatic approach they could think of to pry al Qaeda out of Afghanistan without resorting to invasion:
Bush hopes for cooperation from Afghan citizens
Cowboy rhetoric notwithstanding, Bush deserves some credit for that reasoned approach under what were very trying circumstances. Pretending diplomacy never happened does the president a disservice.
In the immortal words of Charles Dickens, “I thank you for the warning, and I will give particular instructions to the housemaid to lock up the spoons.” 
I am in the process of installing pop-up blocking software, but would like to return to this thread to read it in detail. This is a situation in which
I am not sure how the US should proceed,
I am quite sure that bashing Clinton will not help
I am also quite sure that bashing Bush will not help
I am interested in concrete suggestions on how the US should proceed under present circumstances.
As has been observed, this is a tough one.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe they just want to be left alone.
Has that occurred to you?
They hear a speech on an axis of evil, including Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Next, preperation for an attack on Iraq is in full swing.
Not that odd for them to think:’ Oh, oh, we’re going to be next.’
What they are saying is: ‘Back off, we have the teeth to bite back, if you attack us.’
Although the damage has already been done, you threatened them first, showing attempts at repair might defuse the situation somewhat.
In that light, bashing Bush for threatening them, could be helpful.
A reassurance that you have no intention of attacking them after you’re done with Iraq, might also help. Although I doubt whether that would be very believable, if you do indeed go ahead and attack Iraq.
Or at the very least a reassurance that we won’t attack with nukes, as has been suggested here. Even the implication of that can be interpreted as a violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; i.e. legal cover for a bomb making program by the North.
Here is the timeline as I understand it. I can’t find a specific cite about when the North Koreans started violating their agreement, but a nuclear weapons program can’t be started on a moment’s notice.
I don’t think we should be continuing to supply them with fuel and food if they are violating the treaty. And I don’t think we can cut off the fuel oil supplies and stop building the civilian power reactor without giving some reason to the rest of the world as to why we are doing it, so the North Korean violations of the treaty would have to be public knowledge anyway. So pretending it isn’t happening is both counterproductive, and impossible.
I don’t think we provoked them into restarting their reactors. They want the plutonium to build warheads. From their point of view, the best outcome would have been for the US to send them fuel oil and food while they continue with their nuclear arms development project. Then they announce to the world that they have more nukes, and expect to be treated as a full member of the nuclear club, and threaten Japan and/or South Korea if they don’t get massive international aid, diplomatic recognition, and everything else they could wish for.
We just tipped their hand a bit early - so the situation must be dealt with while they have fewer bombs than they like.
Regards,
Shodan
Squink:
**
From George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, Jan. 29, 2002
By all means. read the entire speech, for context.
Then tell me with a straight face Bush would have called those three countries “an Axis of Evil” were it not for 9/11. Tell me with a straight face that the entire thrust of going after rogue regimes developing weapons of mass destruction isn’t couched in a new spirit of America needing to be diligent about its own national security, given the realities that 9/11 made so abundantly clear.
Funny thing is this demand for a non-aggression treaty is probably whats going to get North Korea into a war. I can’t believe so many people fall for their games. North Korea is just taking advantage of the current situation between the US and South Korea, and the possible conflict in Iraq. They think US forces are going to be too busy with Iraq and the South Koreans too busy with their inferiority complex to deal with them. In case many haven’t noticed the US hasn’t taken a very agressive stance towards them so far yet for some reason its making NK even bolder. This is called extortion. Something I’m sure the US does all the time but the problem is NK is in no position to make demands to the US.
Many have made the argument that the US provoked North Korea and gave them the need to defend themselves with nuclear weapons. Well I’m not sure the North Korean government is that stupid. For one it would give the US an excuse to attack them. 2nd any developing nuclear weapons program with just a hand full of active nukes is just big target in such a small country. Any use of them by North Korea would justify to the use of nukes by the US. Considering the fact that North Korea wouldn’t be able to actually reach the US with its current missile technology they would have to target a couple of neighboring civilian populations. I’m sure that will gain them some allies. The US retalliation would destroy their entire country and armed forces.
They can’t be that stupid. So North Korea is up to something else and I don’t suggest South Koreans or Americans play their little games or give them concessions.
And they were clairvoyant and knew that Bush would be elected half a decade before he was? Because that’s probably how long they have been violating their own agreement and secretly building a program to develop nuclear weapons.
I find it amazing that some people are willing to instantly ascribe terrible motives to their own government, but are willing to assume the best about vicious dictators who have murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
Who is assuming any virtuous motives from the North Koreans?
What I find amazing is that some people are so effortlessly turn a blind eye to anything their own government does.
This is not policy, it is bombastic rhetoric. Policy towards North Kporea was essentially unaltered by 9/11. We refused to talk with North Korea before 9/11, and we refuse to talk with them after 9/11. Nothing has changed. Is that straight enough for you ?
Whom is assuming? Many are assuming North Korea is just defending itself. Based on what that speech? What is the US suppose to bow down to North Korea and pretend they are saints so they won’t build nuclear weapons. Everyone wants the US to take responsibility for its actions. Thats good but the problem is they want the US to take responsibilty for others actions as well. If the US is involved in a situation in anyway their involvement is usually blamed for whatever goes wrong. If North Korea builds nukes, its their fault and their responsibilty. I’m sure if North Korea nukes every South Korean on the penninsula the US will get blamed for it too. Why don’t those standards apply both ways?? This could more justifiably be seen as North Korea trying to provoke the US.
Fascinating how you feel you can threaten anyone on this planet, with impunity, and then regard a response as a provocation.
You mean the response that started several years before the ‘threat’? That response?
No, the response ‘We have nuclear weapons and are willing to use them.’
Haha. I never said that. You think you know my attitude towards US policy already don’t you. Thats sad. I am a very objective person. I just observe that many people critical of the US are hipocrates. They will criticise the US for doing something and not apply those standards to everyone else. That was just a dumb response. I rarely support US military actions. I certainly don’t support it in Iraq. Such a waste of time.
Read what I what said. You are just proving my point. You act as though everything is a reaction to what the US does. The US doesn’t react to anyone else. If North korea can be provoked this vaguely and easily then accordingly the US should nuking people all over the planet. Its a lame excuse and the US shouldn’t be able to use it either.
Because North Korea is a rogue nation that will sell its wares to any buyer?
Yes, true, it is a reaction. A reaction to an attack, on your soil, by Al Qaeda. But a weird reaction. A lash out at countries that had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Do you call that speech vague? We were not to take it seriously?
The massing of troops for an Iraq invasion isn’t vague to me.
I don’t think it’s vague to the North Koreans. For them the threat is real, so they’re sending out a warning.
‘We are not going to be the pushovers, like you think the Iraqis to be. We have nukes, think again.’
Naw its a matter of opinion what country is a rogue nation. Its kinda of like that stupid UN thing. There is this silly idea that if you blow up one side of the world it will actually effect the other.
If every country on the planet had nukes there is no question the planet would be devasted. If enough nukes detonate the effects will effect everyone. So keeping nuclear weapons from spreading is necessary for everyones survival. Bot that there isn’t other reasons to prevent the spread.
Here’s something more logical for you. North Korea and South Korea are technically still at war. The US is allied with South Korea. What kind of idiot would let his enemies develop nuclear weapons and provide him concessions at the same time. Very simple concept. Its not really a moral issue about rogue nations its just common sense. Don’t let your enemy develope weapons of mass destruction to use against you.
I think that the implication of that comment is highly insulting to atheists.
Now that does make sense. Just state the situation without all the moral claptrap and patriotic circus.