Never Mind Iran, Worry About North Korea

[tinybear]

U.S. Within Range of New N. Korea Missile
By GEORGE GEDDA

WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea is accelerating preparations for testing a missile that has the potential to strike the United States, a U.S. government official said Friday. A test of the Taepodong-2 long-range missile may be imminent, the official said.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...74.htm&sc=1104



Hey, I think he should fire his hairdresser, don't you?

[RickSp]

North Korea doesn't have oil. Why should the Bush administration care? And if North Korean missiles can reach California, well it is a blue state anyway.

All joking aside, the Bush administration's unwillingness to engage in any sort of meaningful diplomacy with North Korea has been criminally irresponsible. While lying about Saddam's nuclear program it ignored Kim Jong Il's.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp North Korea doesn't have oil. Why should the Bush administration care? And if North Korean missiles can reach California, well it is a blue state anyway. All joking aside, the Bush administration's unwillingness to engage in any sort of meaningful diplomacy with North Korea has been criminally irresponsible. While lying about Saddam's nuclear program it ignored Kim Jong Il's.

Please define "engage in any sort of meaningful diplomacy with North Korea" so that a discussion can ensue.

"it ignored Kim Jong Il's" The 2002 State of the Union address included several statements concerning Korea's nuclear ambition. That month the President stated that "it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working all fronts."

Following a round of diplomatic engagements with the Koreans and the start of the war in Iraq, the Koreans backed off from their hard stance. That they have have now resumed yet another round is of no surprise.

But Korea was not "ignored"

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Please define "engage in any sort of meaningful diplomacy with North Korea" so that a discussion can ensue. "it ignored Kim Jong Il's" The 2002 State of the Union address included several statements concerning Korea's nuclear ambition. That month the President stated that "it's a diplomatic issue, not a military issue, and we're working all fronts." Following a round of diplomatic engagements with the Koreans and the start of the war in Iraq, the Koreans backed off from their hard stance. That they have have now resumed yet another round is of no surprise. Overall the Bush administration's inattention has only strenghtened Kim's hand. But Korea was not "ignored"

Rather than enter into direct negotiotiations with North Korea, as had the case with the past several administrations the Bush adminstration refused and dilly dallied with the six party talks which accomplished nothing. And in the early days that unguided missle Bolton was running around personally insulting Kim Jong Il which was less than productive.

Fred Barnes does a decent job summarizing it :Rolling Blunder - How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes

On Oct. 4, 2002, officials from the U.S. State Department flew to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, and confronted Kim Jong-il's foreign ministry with evidence that Kim had acquired centrifuges for processing highly enriched uranium, which could be used for building nuclear weapons. To the Americans' surprise, the North Koreans conceded. It was an unsettling revelation, coming just as the Bush administration was gearing up for a confrontation with Iraq. This new threat wasn't imminent; processing uranium is a tedious task; Kim Jong-il was almost certainly years away from grinding enough of the stuff to make an atomic bomb. But the North Koreans had another route to nuclear weapons--a stash of radioactive fuel rods, taken a decade earlier from its nuclear power plant in Yongbyon. These rods could be processed into plutonium--and, from that, into A-bombs--not in years but in months. Thanks to an agreement brokered by the Clinton administration, the rods were locked in a storage facility under the monitoring of international weapons-inspectors. Common sense dictated that--whatever it did about the centrifuges--the Bush administration should do everything possible to keep the fuel rods locked up. Unfortunately, common sense was in short supply. After a few shrill diplomatic exchanges over the uranium, Pyongyang upped the ante. The North Koreans expelled the international inspectors, broke the locks on the fuel rods, loaded them onto a truck, and drove them to a nearby reprocessing facility, to be converted into bomb-grade plutonium. The White House stood by and did nothing. Why did George W. Bush--his foreign policy avowedly devoted to stopping "rogue regimes" from acquiring weapons of mass destruction--allow one of the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the makings of the deadliest WMDs? Given the current mayhem and bloodshed in Iraq, it's hard to imagine a decision more ill-conceived than invading that country unilaterally without a plan for the "post-war" era. But the Bush administration's inept diplomacy toward North Korea might well have graver consequences. President Bush made the case for war in Iraq on the premise that Saddam Hussein might soon have nuclear weapons--which turned out not to be true. Kim Jong-il may have nuclear weapons now; he certainly has enough plutonium to build some, and the reactors to breed more. Yet Bush has neither threatened war nor pursued diplomacy. He has recently, and halfheartedly, agreed to hold talks; the next round is set for June. But any deal that the United States might cut now to dismantle North Korea's nuclear-weapons program will be harder and costlier than a deal that Bush could have cut 18 months ago, when he first had the chance, before Kim Jong-il got his hands on bomb-grade material and the leverage that goes with it. The pattern of decision making that led to this debacle--as described to me in recent interviews with key former administration officials who participated in the events--will sound familiar to anyone who has watched Bush and his cabinet in action. It is a pattern of wishful thinking, blinding moral outrage, willful ignorance of foreign cultures, a naive faith in American triumphalism, a contempt for the messy compromises of diplomacy, and a knee-jerk refusal to do anything the way the Clinton administration did it.

The article is worth reading.

[patriotsACT]

I shift back and fourth about N. Korea. Sometimes I think they just like to rattle the saber. Other times I think they want to use it.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Rather than enter into direct negotiotiations with North Korea, as had the case with the past several administrations the Bush adminstration refused and dilly dallied with the six party talks which accomplished nothing. And in the early days that unguided missle Bolton was running around personally insulting Kim Jong Il which was less than productive. Fred Barnes does a decent job summarizing it :Rolling Blunder - How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukesThe article is worth reading.

Nukes in Korea holds similar characteristics to Peace in the Middle East. Time and again well meaning State department officials have influenced well meaning Presidents to enter into one round of talks after another with the parties involved. The parties involved were given inducements to go along with the talks. Once the value of the inducement is insufficient, the parties flare up old issues to gain attention, and thereby new inducements.

Dealing directly with the Koreans has netted little in the way of lasting affect. To continue in that fashion would be a mistake. I don't see it as the "Bush adminstration refused and dilly dallied", but rather they decided not to "dilly dally" with Korea.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: patriotsACT I shift back and fourth about N. Korea. Sometimes I think they just like to rattle the saber. Other times I think they want to use it.

It would be easy to believe that such leaders wish they had a sabre worth rattling. Some have. The ones that last, I believe, are those who want us to think they do, but who really just want the goodies that follow such threats.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Nukes in Korea holds similar characteristics to Peace in the Middle East. Time and again well meaning State department officials have influenced well meaning Presidents to enter into one round of talks after another with the parties involved. The parties involved were given inducements to go along with the talks. Once the value of the inducement is insufficient, the parties flare up old issues to gain attention, and thereby new inducements. Dealing directly with the Koreans has netted little in the way of lasting affect. To continue in that fashion would be a mistake. I don't see it as the "Bush adminstration refused and dilly dallied", but rather they decided not to "dilly dally" with Korea.

Dealing with the North Koreans is tough. Past efforts yielded modest successes at best. The Bush approach has only exacerbated the problem.

The only measure of policy is in results and we now have a nuclear Korea with ballistic missles. If this is your standard of success, I would hate to see failure.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Dealing with the North Koreans is tough. Past efforts yielded modest successes at best. The Bush approach has only exacerbated the problem. The only measure of policy is in results and we now have a nuclear Korea with ballistic missles. If this is your standard of success, I would hate to see failure.

Korean Nukes: A long time coming

The missiles you refer to are the result of years of development, despite and in violation of, the past efforts you state have yielded "modest success". Hardly a success.

Why would you choose to assume that the nuclear weapons that Korea openly admitted having in 2003 and that our state department informed Korea they were aware of in October of 2002 were the results of development efforts that began in January or 2001.

Why Jan. 2001? That's when George Bush assumed the office of the Presidency. To in anyway assign the presence of nuclear weapons in Korea upon the policy efforts of George Bush ignores history.

Your argument is flawed, and your reasoning clouded. What is it about George Bush that you let him cause such a negative affect upon your ability to think?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Korean Nukes: A long time coming The missiles you refer to are the result of years of development, despite and in violation of, the past efforts you state have yielded "modest success". Hardly a success. Why would you choose to assume that the nuclear weapons that Korea openly admitted having in 2003 and that our state department informed Korea they were aware of in October of 2002 were the results of development efforts that began in January or 2001. Why Jan. 2001? That's when George Bush assumed the office of the Presidency. To in anyway assign the presence of nuclear weapons in Korea upon the policy efforts of George Bush ignores history. Your argument is flawed, and your reasoning clouded. What is it about George Bush that you let him cause such a negative affect upon your ability to think?

Ah yes. More shirking of responsibility. The Bushbots do it so well. Fuck everything up and refuse to take responsibilty for anything.

Bush turned his back on North Korea so he could launch us into a war in Iraq to stop Saddam from developing non-existant nukes. That turned out so well.

Now North Korea has nukes and the Bush administration has its head up its ass. So what else is new?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Ah yes. More shirking of responsibility. The Bushbots do it so well. Fuck everything up and refuse to take responsibilty for anything. Bush turned his back on North Korea so he could launch us into a war in Iraq to stop Saddam from developing non-existant nukes. That turned out so well. Now North Korea has nukes and the Bush administration has its head up its ass. So what else is new?

The idea that Korea's realization of a nuclear program that has been in a state of development for decades is the "fault" of the President in his first two years in office is simply ludicrous.

Your assertion demonstrates a logical lapse. Your posts on numerous threads evidence a hated for George Bush that denies you the ability to reason logically. Why would you allow one person to have such power over you?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 The idea that Korea's realization of a nuclear program that has been in a state of development for decades is the "fault" of the President in his first two years in office is simply ludicrous. Your assertion demonstrates a logical lapse. Your posts on numerous threads evidence a hated for George Bush that denies you the ability to reason logically. Why would you allow one person to have such power over you?

Oh Ape. you repeat the same slurs, which doesn't make them any less foolish.

Yes, North Korea had a nuclear program for years. No news there. It was at a critical juncture where the Bush administration starts out to undo all the groundwork laid by the Clinton Administration, sending that asshole Bolton over to insult everone and to completely reverse any gains made diplomatically over the previous decade. Fred Kaplan's article lays it all out, blow by blow. I know you won't read it.

There had been progress made during the Clinton administration, which I know you will deny. At critical moments with North Korea the Bush administration did absolutely nothing. Again, despite all evidence you will deny that as well. You deny any culpablility or failure on th epart of your fearless leader.

You are in full denial. Your Bushbot bullshit - glorifying everything your fearless leader does is frankly boring and strongly reminscent of North Korea.

Bottom line, your president fucked up big time. North Korea has both nukes and a delivery system. Again, if this is your idea of success, failure must be a real doozey.

And you will deny it all and try to blame it on Clinton. Kinda pathetic really.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Oh Ape. you repeat the same slurs, which doesn't make them any less foolish. Yes, North Korea had a nuclear program for years. No news there. It was at a critical juncture where the Bush administration starts out to undo all the groundwork laid by the Clinton Administration, sending that asshole Bolton over to insult everone and to completely reverse any gains made diplomatically over the previous decade. Fred Kaplan's article lays it all out, blow by blow. I know you won't read it. There had been progress made during the Clinton administration, which I know you will deny. At critical moments with North Korea the Bush administration did absolutely nothing. Again, despite all evidence you will deny that as well. You deny any culpablility or failure on th epart of your fearless leader. You are in full denial. Your Bushbot bullshit - glorifying everything your fearless leader does is frankly boring and strongly reminscent of North Korea. Bottom line, your president fucked up big time. North Korea has both nukes and a delivery system. Again, if this is your idea of success, failure must be a real doozey. And you will deny it all and try to blame it on Clinton. Kinda pathetic really.

The point which you fail to recognize is that Korea has consistently lied to the United States. It was NEVER their intention to stop their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. They continued under Clinton, in no way deterred by the diplomacy of the U.S.

It's not that Clinton diplomacy was that much more flawed than any other diplomatic approach to Korea. It’s that Korea's leadership view talk as a weakness. They will do as they please until they detect a credible threat upon their power.

In 1994, Clinton massed troops on the border of Korea in a show of force. Korea took note and entered into talks with the U.S. Even with the threat of hostilities, Korea refused to allow inspectors into the country. The Koreans, like the rest of the world, had seen a lack of resolve on the part of America in Somalia, China, and Haiti in the preceding months

Then Clinton sent Carter to Korea to broker a deal. As soon as Carter’s soft shoe visit was over, he was disowned by the White House. That is certainly not the kind of activity that helps a diplomatic effort. Carter’s trip effectively stopped the impending sanctions against Korea that were in development in the U.N.

Kim is the puppet of Communist China. As such, he is unlikely to feel a real threat in the face of “will you sit quietly if I give you a cookie” diplomacy (Clinton gave them Light water reactor technology). He continued his efforts in nuclear weapons development throughout this entire episode. He thumbed his nose at the U.S.

And he will continue to do so as long as he can make threats and get gifts, while continuing his secret projects and refusing inspections.

Any “progress” you believe occurred during the 90’s is illusory.

Take off your democrat good, republican bad I really hat Bush glasses and deal with reality.

But maybe I'm completely wrong. Please, enlighten me on the " progress made during the Clinton administration". Just what was the "groundwork laid by the Clinton Administration", how was it effective?

And BTW, I fail to see how my pointing out that the situation in Iraq is not the direct and sole result of the Bush administration puts me in "full denial" or demonstrates my position as a "bushbot".

Your repetition of the catch phrase "bushbot" aimed at anyone who does not evidence the same level of loathing for anything Bush demonstrates a level of conditioning that you should be worried about.

[Apeman81]

So how should we react to Korea?