yikes. i know improving relations with foreign countries is a goal of those seeking to knock off Bush...but this isn't exactly what I hoped for. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...y&c=StoryFT&cid=1078381535832&p=1012571727088 North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid By Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington Published: March 4 2004 20:24 | Last Updated: March 4 2004 20:24 North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader. But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang. In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime. The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme. But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards for North Korea if it disarms. The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war. If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry. "It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he says. Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry as soft on national security. A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as "Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he returned from serving in Vietnam. Mr Kerry was first introduced to North Korea's information-starved people in early February, when Radio Pyongyang reported that opinion polls indicated he was likely to defeat Mr Bush. A few days later, the station broadcast comments by Mr Kerry criticising Mr Bush for deceiving the world about Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction. Later in February, KCNA welcomed Mr Kerry's pledge to adopt a more "sincere attitude" towards North Korea if elected. "Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticised President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea," said the news agency. Pyongyang's friendly attitude towards Mr Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.
crap, i knew kerry was dealing with dynamite when he said that he would change north korean policy back to Clinton's policy, i can predict that the Bush campaign will use this against him, like any politician would. As much as i rag on bush on his middle east and domestic policies, I will admit that his policy in Asia has been successful (this is something that you will never hear black/white minded conservatives on this board saying-something good about the opponent). His hard line stance has made it clear to China that this is a regime that cannot be tested or prodded. our focus on Japan has been positive and makes china have to compete a little bit. His clearcut stance in NK has worked better than the trustful stance that Clinton had, which led to cheating by the NKs. although our current situation is at stalemate and some compromises will need to be made in the future, i will take our current asian policy over the one that kerry will seem to have. that still doesnt mean i'll vote for bush, as i put domestic, and our more important foreign policy over our policies in asia.
Freakin' Kerry...I know he's no versed in Foreign Policy yet, but he needs to think before he opens his big mouth...
Oh wow, it's all so clear now! North Korea prefers Kerry, so Kerry's a communist! How did I not see this before?
Our current North Korea policy is working out extremely well, look at what our policy has gotten us: " We hate you Bush, Go f yourself, we won't talk to you, we're going to build nuclear bombs and missiles and you can't do anything about it because you are overextended in Iraq" Yeah, they are so scared of Bush, if Kerry gets elected, they might go nuclear!!! Oh, wait.... Nyquil: I recollect that Bush's Korea policy has been rather schizophrenic ? At first it was "Whatever Clinton did was wrong" then it was "screw you NK" then it was "don't worry about NK, its a different siituation than Iraq, we'll deal with it." then it was "NK, please talk to us" then it was "NK, please, NK baby, Ike Turner didn't mean to do you like that, please NK come on back to the table baby" now it is god knows what. EDIT: Here's an article (not sure about the sourcing, so its not gospel) that seems to encapsulate what I was referring to:
I think the policy on north korea with Bush is that north korea wants to build missiles and bush is highly against it and will not make any ridiculous concessions to appease them, at the same time is not being crazy enough to start a war there (and God forbid that happens, i just read that if a war happens, NKorean artillery would kill over 100,000 lives in the first hour). This has led to stalemate, but i think with Clinton's method, they would be making missiles behind our back, while we were giving them concessions. we still have the same problem, but at least, we have a good idea of whats going on behind our back. dammit kerry...never liked you that much anyway.
But then it just seems to boil down to a choice between two lousy options: 1. NK makes illegal weapons/missiles behind our backs 2. NK makes illegal weapons/missiles in front of our faces flaunting it to an administration that stresses pre-emption as its policy yet doesn't follow up on it. Both of these are highly problematic!
You're damned either way, but Clinton's approach of coddling them while they break their agreements to cease and desist their WMD program is just plain and simple lunacy. We just need to contain them and equip ourselves to defend Japan and South Korea against shorter-range ICBMs, which we be able to once we get this bad boy online: The YA-1 laser plane, designed to shoot down ICBM's. Testing starts soon. With the SM-3 missile, our SPY-1 AEGIS system equipped cruisers and destroyers can act as mobile ICBM defense platforms and since the Japanese have AEGIS boats as well, we will likely sell them the missiles for their self-defense. I think either the NK will collapse if we stop giving the fuel and food they need to continue their regime and we let it be known that we will, despite their massive manpower advantage, kick their asses in time of war.
I find it funny that bama's always talking about 'nads. balls, functioning male organs and such, then posts two phallic pictures. Bama, the closet is a dark place.
Not versed in foreign policy? Are you insane or in denial? He's been on the FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTIEE FOR 16 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What he dropped in the toilet this morning is more knowledgable about foreign affairs than George Bush is. " You have black people here too ?" Remember that gem from this foreign -policy- expert President?
Hey, at least you don't surf the available males at Match.com (not that there's anything wrong with that, just saying that rimrocker's evidence is a bit flimsy).
It's especially surprising that you overlooked this simple rationale, given that we have seen it clearly demonstrated in the whole : Al Queda supports Iraq vs. the American invasion, therefore Saddam was behind 9-11 argument a few months back. Pay attention.
yeah, we are worse off either way, however a contact of mine in the korean embassy believes that north korea will take steps to disarm, although I am still pretty skeptical. im not going to support bush too much, cause it makes me feel funny, but I think the fact that we at least know they are making weapons and that we are taking a multinational approach to this is good. Ideally i want a policy that is somewhere in the middle that uses something a little stronger and more direct than sanctions yet is willing to make some sacrifices to end this thing before it gets worse. and bama, although the situation is focused on their missiles and threats to our own security, the reason we havent invaded or been more forceful is because the DPRK pretty much has northern south korea and Seoul under the hostage of hundreds of artillery which we have no defense for. its hard to negotiate with that, but it would be even harder to get the south koreans to all move 100 miles south towards Pusan. ICBMs are the future concern, the 100,000 people in the "killbox" are whats preventing any aggresiveness
ha ha ha What's weird is that I'm the tallest out of all the SEC beat writers.....by far. They are all either mousy little skinny guys or guys with big beer bellies. And I'm only one with a Fu Manchu and a ponytail. That look sure didn't help when I ran for City Council a year ago.
