I am not dubious about this analysis and think its pretty spot on. As I said in another thread the only way we can force NK to back off nukes is a very destructive war that will do huge harm to not only the region but the World economy. Even though the North Koreans live in an isolated closed society I can't believe that this is a condition that will last in perpetuity. As NK tries to building somesort of functional economy they will have to open up, they have built some free trade zones. Knowledge of the outside World will get to the North Koreans and they will wonder why they don't have the life like South Koreans or Chinese. This will take a long time but I can't see a war ending up good for anyone involved.
I think the real issue here is that many of you overestimate the U.S.' ability to stop countries from 'going nuclear'. In almost every case, the options are very limited, and those limited options are very costly in both money and blood. I can't blame the U.S. or even the UN for this one, there is just so much you can do to stop nuclear proliferation. You can limit nuclear proliferation, primarily through cooperation with other 'world powers' and other nations to create a framework through which it can be done; we have tried to do just that through the IAEA and other diplomatic channels, as well as through military/covert actions in the past. So while we might have had success in stopping Libya and Iraq from 'going nuclear', we failed to do so with India, Pakistan, and now North Korea. That's just the way it works. If you're looking for a 100% foolproof way through which we can restrict access to the nuclear club, you'll be disappointed. But, if you're looking for 'evidence' to pin this on the Bush administration anyways, then you have what NK's UN ambassador had to say about why his country went nuclear, which is that they felt threatened and bullied by Bush and his 'trigger happy' ways -- presumably a reference to Iraq.
You think I'm "holier than thou?" Fine. Delude yourself. I've explained the line I put at the bottom of my D&D posts enough times, typing every damn one of them, and I'm not going to explain it again. You don't get it, anyway. Why did I ask the question several times? It's a rhetorical device. If you don't like it, just skim right on by. I never said Bush could have stopped NK from developing atomics, if NK really wanted to build them, short of war. He could have tried talking to the country. He could have followed Clinton's policy towards the country. It couldn't possibly have obtained a worse result than what we've seen, and who knows... it might have forestalled this test. We'll never know, since he refused to make the attempt. You crack me up with this "holier than thou" stuff, Jackie. Look in a mirror. I've never stalked any of the members here to find "dirt" on them, like you have. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't think N. Korea testing a nuke is a big deal. It's a desperate action by a crumbling government... the worst fear is if N. Korea collapses in chaos.
Ohh good to be back amongst friends again. i just got back from iran. oh how i missed the lively banter that is only associated with our great members here... Back to the original point. NK had warned the international community about it's intentions ahead of time. infact they've been heading down these path for a while now. yet the international community thought there bloughing. russian rullet at it's finest. Madam Albright tried to bribe the little man into accepting an packiage that would include alot of bonuses and more importantly food for the impoverished people of NK. however they along with bush refused to gurantee the security of not trying to bring the communist regime down..
No, but I don't type "Keep D&D civil" in every single one of my posts in this forum. Fine, attack me, I can live with that (if I dish it out, I should be able to take some punches as well ), but then don't present yourself as some sort of self-proclaimed guardian of civility. That's hypocritical. It's fine if he wants to keep D&D civil, but then he should practice what he preaches. Make up your mind - can't dish it out and demand from others that they remain civil in responding to such personal attacks.
This is in fact a bigger problem to China than to the U.S. I actually agree with Bush's policies here. Let china deal with NK. What the U.S. needs to do is to make sure that NK does not transfer their nuclear technology to any terrorist organization or Iran. We need to get some tougher sanctions in place.
Clinton's policy didn't work because it never received Senate appropriations for his concessions. It's the biggest barrier behind these talks. Sure Dubya could've resumed formal talks as agreed upon, but Kim's uranium program had started. Clinton realized that he had to give Kim (the little man ) face. Members on both sides of Congress balked at Bill conceeding to a blackmailing madman. This will definitely happen again and again, despite a future president having the insight to find a common win-win goal. Resuming talks isn't too late, but it's a far difficult job considering the crowds behind the opposing leaders. For any attempt at salvaging this mess, Bush will have to take an extra loss of face after Kim called his bluff. Though I have no idea whether it's a resolution or just more forstalling...
Iran's nuke program is far more advanced then the western intelligence communitiy believes. i will perdict within 2 years iran will joing NK as a nuclear power.
You're crackin' me up, Jackie. Like I said, I've explained why I do that numerous times. If you don't recall reading that, having selective amensia, that's a drag. Do a search. I'll add this... my comment was a general one directed at a group of members defending Bush's "foreign policy" decisions regarding North Korea. You, however, made a personal attack on me, which I find amusing. What is more amusing is your subsequent tirade. Take a chill pill, man, and consider yourself lucky that the German military doesn't have tens of thousands of troops below the demilitarized zone in South Korea, and in bases within reach of NK missiles, and far larger numbers of allied military and civilians within reach of this madman. Or 140,000 troops in Iraq because of Bush's failed policies, in a nightmare without end. Relax, and have a beer. Your country makes suberb beer. Be proud. Enjoy. Keep D&D Civil.
Your final statement could have been written by the Chinese government. Testing the nuke is a REALLY big deal but a collapse of the NK regime would be a truly historic event. Millions of people would flood north into China and south into ROK. The atrocticies of Kim's regime and the humanitarian disaster known as NK would be laid open for the world to see. IMO, it could be a bigger event in history than the fall of the Berlin Wall. It may be the only way NK will change is by sudden collapse of the regime. If so, the sooner the better. An orderly transition would be better but I doubt that is possible.
Former Secretary of State James Baker, the Secretary of State for Junior's father: "I don't think you restrict your conversations to your friends," he said. "It's got to be hard-nosed," Baker said. "It's got to be determined. You don't give away anything. But in my view it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies." http://www.statesman.com/search/con...White_House_Advisers/US_James_Baker_Iraq.html Keep D&D Civil.
Well, we have troops in Afghanistan, and I am about 50 miles from the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea right now.
Are you a representative of the German military? That's great SJC. I have never been to South Korea, although I've been to Japan and Hong Kong, which I really enjoyed, as well as Thailand, India, and many other places over the years. I was curious... did you see my quote from former Secretary of State James Baker? Here's an article about what he's been doing: Baker Panel Preparing Iraq Alternatives By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON — James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state with a long-standing reputation of service to Republican presidents and the Bush family in particular, has joined a list of prominent Republicans raising questions about the administration's Iraq policy. Co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying what to do next in the wartorn country, Baker said his panel is preparing to recommend that President Bush consider options other than his "stay-the-course" strategy in Iraq. "Our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of stay the course and cut and run," the former secretary of state said. Partisan critics of Democratic proposals to consider drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq at times call that kind of talk a "cut and run" strategy. Baker did not disclose specific proposals that might be adopted by the commission, which plans to issue its report after the November congressional elections. But his remarks Sunday on the ABC's "This Week" were the latest in which a high-profile Republican has seemed to say it is time for the administration to consider other alternatives in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that when the commission makes its proposals, "We are going to take them seriously." Asked if the administration would make changes after the election, Snow said "There are tactical and strategic changes and adjustments that are made all the time. That's the nature of a war." The mounting U.S. costs of the Iraq war — more than $300 billion and more than 2,700 American troops dead — has taken a toll on Bush's popularity ratings and on Republican prospects for retaining control of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections. Agreeing in part with Bush, Baker said "if we picked up and left right now" Iraq would be plunged into "the biggest civil war you've ever seen," with Turkey, Iran, Syria and other neighboring countries getting involved. But he made it clear that the commission would advise changes in U.S. strategy, nevertheless. "We're going to come up, hopefully, with some recommendations that the Congress and the president and the country can look at," he said. Just last week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., returned from a trip to Iraq to say the war there was "drifting sideways." Warner, usually an administration loyalist, said that if Iraqis do not made progress in three months to reduce ethnic fighting and bolster reconstruction efforts, Congress would have to make "bold decisions." Just last week, Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell said, "Stay the course isn't a good enough answer, because to stay the course you have to have a finish line." Other Republicans who have been critical of aspects of Bush's Iraq policies have included Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Chafee and Shays face difficult re-election races next month. Baker also questioned the administration's policy of not talking to Iran or Syria, whom the United States has accused of helping terrorism. "I don't think you restrict your conversations to your friends," said Baker, who noted he had made 15 trips to Damascus as secretary of state. "It's got to be hard-nosed," Baker said. "It's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view it is not appeasement to talk to your enemies." Baker was a close adviser to Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, serving him both as White House chief of staff and secretary of state. He came to the aid of the current president during the Florida recount during the contested election of 2000, has a long track record of loyalty to the Bush family and the GOP and has developed a reputation of being conservative but pragmatic. Baker said Sunday he would like "to take this thing out of politics" by delaying the release of the commission's recommendations until after the elections, and possibly until a new Congress takes office in January. The panel's other co-chair is former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who was co-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. http://www.statesman.com/search/content/shared-gen/ap/Other_US_Govermnent/Baker_Iraq.html Have a good time, and enjoy the food and scenery. Just think... if the balloon goes up right now, you could be in SK for a very long time. Just remember to duck and cover. You may be irritating, on occasion, but I wouldn't want anything to happen to you. Keep D&D Civil.
Nuclear proliferation was bound to happen as soon as the first nuke was dropped on Hiroshima. Knowledge like that just can't stay bottled up forever and we should consider it something of an achievement that 60 years after only a handful of countries have gone nuclear. I'm convinced that the nuclear genie is out of there's no way to put it back. I think its practically inevitable that non-proliferation will fail. As much as it pains me to say this MAD is the only viable solution preventing the use, if not the spread, of nukes. Its not a good feeling that mutual annihilation is the only thing keeping us from using nukes again, it certainly doesn't make me feel any better when the Admin. starts revising policy to advocate the use of them, but I'm not sure there is any other solution.
Terror groups are held unaccountable by the state. If nukers fit the same profile of the 9/11 hijackers, would we nuke Egypt and Saudi Arabia in retaliation? Who knows...our well of crazy politicians is far from dry. This is a bookmark to a different chapter in history. I'd want to say that Bush's entire term is a bookmark...
