Quote from Condi Rice: "The North Koreans have been told by the president of the United States that the United States has no intention of attacking or invading North Korea."
So why the flat foot this time? Especially since they DO have them, compared to a certain country that DIDN'T.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I found their reasoning extremely funny. They claim it's because Bush's state of the union address spoke of "spreading freedom" that Bush was "diabolical and would make the world burn with the fires of war".
It's possibly the only time I've heard a real person use "diabolical" in a sentence.
Mabye they'll call Tony Blair "dastardly" so he wont feel jilted.
The US (and everyone else for that matter) wont fuck with North Korea just now: not because Kim has nukes, but because he has nukes and he's fucking insane.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Well, we're working on Iran at the moment. I mean, they're obviously more of a danger with us, what with their years-away nuclear program.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Years away, compared to like, RIGHT NOW?
It does not make sense for the US to ignore the more credible threat of North Korea than to chase after Iran.
Unless Iran has oil, of course.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
When in the past four years has the US done anything that made sense?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
We renewed SCRUBS for another season...
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, we also reelected George W. Bush.
Which at first glance is a "Huh? That don't make sense" until you realize that its in keeping with the trend of illogic over the last four plus years, and then you're like "Oh, well, that makes perfect sense, then."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
At least we established stable governments that can fairly and democratically rule their greatful populatons in Afghanistan and Iraq.
uh..no....that's not quite accurate...
We did manage to make America safe and maintain our constitutional rights...
er..
Well, at least Enterprise got renewed.
Oh wait..
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Sounds to me like North Korea wants to both have the cake and eat it.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
North Korea wants talks directly with the US, under Clinton this was ongoing and was producing results. They don't want to have just talks with the other countries because the US is the one who keeps pushing the buttons to get NK sanctioned and harrased by the rest of the world. Why Bushco decided to stop the direct talks and go to this strange arrangement where they will only talk to NK through the other countries, I'll never know. NK talks directly with every country in the little group except the US. The US is using the Kirk strategy and like Khan, NK has called them on it.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I find the whole arena of world politics to be rather childish. And unfortunately, the parents of the children range from moderately to extremely unstable.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Um...North Korea does NOT want direct talks to disarm. They want a bribe to discontinue their nuclear program.
They called it a "foreign aid package" but it's a bribe.
At least that was their offer a few years back. Now Kim may just be going for a place in the history books.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:So why the flat foot this time? Especially since they DO have them, compared to a certain country that DIDN'T.
Simple really. Invading countries armed with nukes is rather dangerous; it's much safer to invade countries that don't have them, even if you tell everyone they do. Plus there isn't much in the way of oil in North Korea, at least not that I'm aware of. Aside from that if you attack NK, you might as well be attacking China, which is a rather silly thing to do. Not that I think picking on Iran is a genius move at this point either.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Kim's hair is a valuable rescource of hair gel though...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The US is using the Kirk strategy and like Khan, NK has called them on it."
Yeah, but NK will be brought down because they think two-dimensionally.
And now I'm stuck with this image of Kim Jong-Il calling Bush to tell him he has nukes and Bush yelling into the phone "KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM!!!"
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Kim Jong II: "The override!...WHERE's THE OVERRIDE!?!"
Though the thought of Bush in control of North Korea as well is pretty sobering.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's "IL", not "II".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah....
I just call him Kim.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Consistency..... Bush lacks Consistency.....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
George W. Bush: the overwatery oatmeal of world politics.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But....Bush is consistanat.
He's consistantly gone after easier targets than those that pose a real treat to the US.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grokca: Why Bushco decided to stop the direct talks and go to this strange arrangement where they will only talk to NK through the other countries, I'll never know.
Let's see... Perhaps it's becaues the US was in direct negotiations with the DPRK for the past ten years, and they consistently lied through their teeth to us about their nuclear program? The whole point of the negotiations back in 1994 was to stop the North Koreans from building their nuclear reactor, and subsequently, nuclear weapons.
And what did they do? They took the foreign aid package, got help in building a second nuclear reactor, and continued working on their nukes.
For once, I think that the multilateral talks with North Korea are one of the few things that the Bush administration has done even remotely right in the area of international diplomacy. They certainly should've been a lot more discreet and tactful (*cough*AXISOFEVIL*cough*) but IMO it's much more important to get the other nations of the region directly involved in the talks to get them all to come down on the North Koreans the next time they start acting up after this.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Also consider the anxiety of all the neighboring countries if they're shut out of disarmament talks with a country with nuclear weapons and a nutty leader.
Japan is not pulling any punches: today they gave NK an untimatum- North Korea resumes talks or Japan passes a law banning all North Korean ships from Japan's harbors.
No trade with japan would cost NK a heck of a lot, I'd imagine.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Right, about one quarter of North Korea's exports go to Japan, so they'll definatly notice even though NK doesn't have much trade total.
It's nice to finally see some economic pressure being put on North Korea. This should have been done over a year ago, and even now a more unified stance from China, South Korea, and the U.S. would be helpful. This would be much more decisive then Japan acting alone.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The US adding economic pressure would only strengthen Kim's idea that the US is out to get him.
Japan acting without US involvment sets a leadership example to the other countries in the region. Mabye the NK's local trading partners will economicaly strangle Kim into real negotiations.
It'd be nice to see UN economic sanctions though. (not real likely- everyone treats NK like someone holding a live grenade- with good reason.) North Korea wants a biiig foreign aid package from the US to stop it's nuclear programs. That's why they ant "direct" talks that exclude the six member nations. Can you see any NATO country sending millions (or moore) of dollars to a dictatorship on their word not to continue making bombs?
That would certainly send the wrong message to Iran....and NK is watching how we handle Iran for clues how to deal with the US. Quite the circle, eh?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Quite simply, the reason Bush will never go into unilateral talks with North Korea is because, during the campaign, Kerry said we should.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Japan acting without US involvment sets a leadership example to the other countries in the region. Mabye the NK's local trading partners will economicaly strangle Kim into real negotiations.
Heh, I wish. Probably those wacky North Koreans will just start screaming that Japan is just a puppet of the United States. Remember, logic is something that is nearly completely absent from North Korean diplomacy...
quote:North Korea wants a biiig foreign aid package from the US to stop it's nuclear programs. That's why they ant "direct" talks that exclude the six member nations. Can you see any NATO country sending millions (or moore) of dollars to a dictatorship on their word not to continue making bombs?
Especially since that's exactly what happened the last time. The US signed a deal with the DPRK, in which they agreed to halt their nuclear weapons programs and shut down their heavy water nuclear reactor. In exchange, the US agreed to help them build a light-water reactor (in which the reactor's byproducts can't be used to help make nuclear weapons), and give them a great big aid package (food, mostly). And instead, the North Koreans took the aid package, got help building the new reactor, and kept working on their nukes.
Would you try to make a deal with someone like that again? I believe the proper saying is, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: Would you try to make a deal with someone like that again? I believe the proper saying is, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Not according to the president.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I believe the phrase was "Fool me once, shame on... shame on me... fool me... won't get fooled again."
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:For once, I think that the multilateral talks with North Korea are one of the few things that the Bush administration has done even remotely right in the area of international diplomacy.
Yes, it sure seems to have worked really well. Can't argue with results.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Grocka: Obviously, diplomacy involves many instances where there is such a thing as a no-win scenario. This is one of those cases. Until the North Koreans realize that they're not going anywhere with their inconsistent and irrational policies (probably around the time that they finally get fed up with Kim Jong Il and overthrow those communist nutcases), we're basically stuck with the status quo. Therefore, the position of insisting upon multilateral negotiations is more about our relationships with the other nations involved (including and especially China) rather than trying to get results from those wacky North Koreans.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Strange to have China on our (and Japan and South Korea's ) side though.
Russia's the place to be watching lately: they're becoming the world's biggest arms dealer. They just agreed to sell Chavez's regieme 100,000 AK assualt rifles.
...how long before they start selling nukes? Sounds crazy, but it's a major concern of the British ands American governments.
The russians can not even account for all their old warheads.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
My question is - what if KJI *is* nuts enough to nuke anyone? Aren't the concepts of mutually-assured destruction in effect here? Or is the international community worried that NK doesn't understand that? Or are we still worried about NK making nukes and selling them to terrorists?
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That's the whole problem... Kim Jong Il probably is nuts enough to not care about mutually-assured destruction. Even if in his case, assuming he doesn't have globally-reaching missiles and enough warheads to carpet-bomb the entire US, even a nuclear war would be extremely one-sided, although still unbelievably messy (to put it mildly).
Think about it: at this point, most analysts figure that the DPRK has one or two warheads, with enough material to make maybe a dozen at most. It's been two years (almost) that they've been working at actually building the bombs. So assuming that this standoff doesn't go on indefinitely, we're talking about less than a hundred nukes, most likely only a tiny fraction of that number. Compare that to the thousands in the US arsenal...
It goes without saying, though, that any nuclear warfare, even if it were "limited" (in that it wouldn't be the big US-USSR-scale World War III that people were afraid of during the Cold War) would still be incredibly catastrophic for all concerned. Even if Kim couldn't reach the US directly, making a mess of South Korea and Japan would cause so much havoc (militarily, politically, economically, and environmentally) that we'd be in pretty big trouble anyway.
Plus, if one country (even one as nutty as North Korea) breaks the long-standing tradition of not using nukes (at least since their "demonstrations" in WWII), it would remove a lot of the barriers for other, more rational countries to start using nukes too. Dare I mention India and Pakistan? Or Israel?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Kim cares about leverage more than he cares about making a mess.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I doubt that lets people in South Korea sleep any easier though.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
They would if they knew they had the Film Actors' Guild with them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Explain, Kemosabe.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Grocka: Obviously, diplomacy involves many instances where there is such a thing as a no-win scenario.
Well before Bush pulled out of the talks with NK, on very sketchy information, there were inspectors on the ground in NK. ,the talks were ongoing, and NK was able to heat and feed it's people. Bush did the same thing to NK that he did to Iraq, used exagerated info, and worse case senarios to back up his claims of cheating by NK. Now the situation is that NK is bound by nothing, , there are no talks and we have no way of knowing just what NK has or doesn't have. I suggest you read this , and not get all of your info from the Bush admin. Bush tends to lie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
While I agree that the Bush administration is full of crap, I wouldn't say there is "no way of knowing just what NK has or doesn't have".
After all, it's not as though the inspectors had free reign to go whereever they wanted: they were always escorted by KN military personell and they had to request where they would "inspect" far in advance.
Besides, there is almost certainly a huge amount of intel we are not privy to (from satelites, spy planes and spies in KN- from the US and undoubtdly Japan, China and South Korea as well).
Playing hardball with NK is the only course of action that no one has tried so far: the previous decade of nuclear disarmament talks have obviously meant nothing to Kim.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
I think KJL is in the same frame of mind that many around the globe are in these days. ie. Who could care less what America thinks???
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
KJL seems ONLY to care what America thinks though: he seems not to even know the countries around him exist but wants to "negoitiate" (get money from in exchange for empty promises hat politicians can hail as a "victory") the US alone, in closed-door talks.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Two major points in the debate: 1: KJI wants to keephis North Korean world closed, so his people don't know that they don't really live in paradise. Having powerful weapons to force the US to give him tribute is a good way to do that.
2: A Nuclear North korea is real high on China's list of things they don't want on their border.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Okay, so now those wacky North Koreans are even refusing direct negotiations with the US, which they were previously demanding. As I understand it, refusal to negotiate would normally be a direct prelude to war.
But of course, after going hunting for a big cache of nukes that didn't exist, it's virtually impossible to now lay the smackdown on a country that definitely does have nukes. But hey, who cares -- we've got lots of oil now!
...
Yes, I do know that attacking North Korea would be a massively messy situation even under the best of circumstances, even messier than Iraq is right now. I was being partially facetious with my previous paragraph. However, while everyone's pleading for North Korea to come back to the table, nobody's doing anything else about it. It's like the world's shaking their collective heads, muttering "shame, shame... someone should do something about it..." but desperately hoping they don't have to do anything themselves.
Y'know, everyone complains about the US being the only superpower now, but is there any other country out there -- or better yet, a group of countries -- that's even trying to do something in situations like these? If everyone else wants to change the Order Of Things in this world, why can't they be more proactive?
(And before anyone flames me into oblivion for that last musing, I know that conflict -- and worse, open warfare -- should never be sought after, but neither should it be avoided at all costs. I'm afraid that too many countries are becoming afraid to do something about this growing crisis.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
When were we hunting for a big cache of nukes?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Remember that obscure little nation-state in the dersert somewhere called "Iraq"? Where we were looking for an any-size cache of pretty much anything with a "not for children under age 3" warning, yet still came up empty-handed?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think even the most right-wing FOX News reporter ever said Iraq had Nuclear Weapons.
They tried to scare people into thinking Saddam wanted to buy them, but not that he had them already or that we were looking for them in Iraq.
Not that biological warfare is any less scary or anything.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
No, there's just a lot less Destruction involved.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Yes, with nuclear weapons it was all "they can kill us, but they'll destroy everything else too!" whereas bio/chem weapons are all "they'll kill us, and steal our stuff!" Much worse.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Oh yeah the USA is trying to do something about the 'situation'. Gimme a break. The only time the USA does anything is to help itself. The rest is just a gaudy side show. (A-La Fox News).