Should the USA be the World's Policeman

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I do not recall Clinton calling N. Korea "evil" (even if they are)or building up a huge military presence over near them either. Bubba was a bit more diplomatic than that. It takes two to tango, that is, it take two to wage war and to engage in agressive posturing. History reveals that walking softly and carrying a big stick is the best way to handle N. Korea and avoid conflict. Clinton policies along these lines helped achieve somewhat of a dialog over there. Bush policies have been anything but diplomatic concerning N. Korea and have set back relations 20 years. You may choose not to see GWB's role in the current escelation of tension, but it is there.

I guess pay-offs are diplomatic. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Clinton walked timidly and held out our wallet.

Why should North Korea's bad behavior be rewarded? We've have troops in the South for the past 50 years to protect the South from the North, but we send food and oil to the North because they're cold and hungry?

Oh wait, we sent them food and oil so they'd stop their nuclear weapons program.... which they didn't do despite taking our food and oil.... Um, how did this work for us again?

They want us to start giving them oil again. Giving it to them mind you. If they could buy it they wouldn't give a crap, so I say, let someone else give it to them.

Maybe one of those nations who wants to diffuse the situation can just step in, offer to replace the oil and food shipments for the next 100 years. Kim would be happy because he wouldn't have to worry about the mean old US, and could, instead spend some quality time with his Daffy Duck film collection. He doesn't care who it comes from, and with his people fed he could also continue to secretly increase his enriched uranium supply.


[ 01-17-2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Either way I think we can all agree that peace is far more preferable to war on the Korean penisula. I think the challenge is finding the best way to encourage peace. Obviously Clinton did a much better job of it.

I'll agree with it up to the last line....lol. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just because Clinton made NK happy doesn't mean he did a good job of keeping the peace. It means he left a bully hungry for more, and we all know, paying a bully your school lunch money everyday is a sure why to go hungry.

And it's no guarantee he won't clobber you anyway.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Either way I think we can all agree that peace is far more preferable to war on the Korean penisula. I think the challenge is finding the best way to encourage peace. Obviously Clinton did a much better job of it.

I'll agree with it up to the last line....lol. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just because Clinton made NK happy doesn't mean he did a good job of keeping the peace. It means he left a bully hungry for more, and we all know, paying a bully your school lunch money everyday is a sure why to go hungry.

And it's no guarantee he won't clobber you anyway.
[/QUOTE]Funny, I wouldn't relate a bit of diplomatic charity to promote good will with a bully taking lunch money.

Even odder, I would not make N.K. the Bully and the U.S. as the nerd either. Kind of a backwards logic that I don't get. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Either way I think we can all agree that peace is far more preferable to war on the Korean penisula. I think the challenge is finding the best way to encourage peace. Obviously Clinton did a much better job of it.

I'll agree with it up to the last line....lol. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just because Clinton made NK happy doesn't mean he did a good job of keeping the peace. It means he left a bully hungry for more, and we all know, paying a bully your school lunch money everyday is a sure why to go hungry.

And it's no guarantee he won't clobber you anyway.
[/QUOTE]Funny, I wouldn't relate a bit of diplomatic charity to promote good will with a bully taking lunch money.

Even odder, I would not make N.K. the Bully and the U.S. as the nerd either. Kind of a backwards logic that I don't get. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Diplomatic charity? Now that is funny because what NK wants... no what they demand is continued payment despite not living up to their end of the bargain. Pay them or else, would seem to be what they're saying...

Odd that it doesn't sound like a bully's actions to you. Maybe extortionist is more accurate? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 01-18-2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Rageheart]

i think this'll be a bumpy ride.......

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Odd that it doesn't sounds like a bully's actions to you. Maybe extortionist is more accurate? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Extortionist perhaps, they lack the muscle or the morale to be a bully. They do remind me of the type of panhandler that gets in your face and demands money instead of sitting on a sidewalk shaking a cup. They know they will lose a war, but the cost would be great on both sides. A bully only acts like a bully if no one is around to put them in thier place.

N.K.'s behavior does not change the fact that after 9-11 Bush labeled them the bad guys, lest we forget the "axis of evil" speech, giving N.K. an out to abandon the agreements they were in in the supposed interest of self-defense. The U.S. poked them with a finger and they poked back. Predictable behavior as history shows.

Perhaps if Bush would have left N.K. out of the Axis of evil speech and sought to normalize relations a bit we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. Or perhaps not.

Whatever, it is a mess. Recent news from South Korea's Goverment says the U.S. has been pushing them for a military offensive, which they opposed.
South Korea's reconcillitory policies of recent times shows that the U.S. is somewhat out of touch with what our ally wants.

Regardless, I have no love for the heartless regime that is in charge in N.K.
It is a brutal and repressive regime, not to mention clever, crazy, and downright wacky. A recent Time magazine provided insight into the leader Kim something or another. What a nut-case! [img]graemlins/1dizzy.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: One small point Magic The nuclear reactors that the Clinton Administration agreed to help North Korea build were two light-water reactors. These do not produce plutonium as a 'waste'-product - Unlike the reactor that NK recently reactivated, which the two former was supposed to replace.

The "THEORY" is that the light water reactors do not produce plutonium as waste, but through some scinece I am not too up on (nuclear physics not my main interest) they can be used to accumulate something like 17000grams of plutonium per year, which would allow them to build 60 or so bombs (my info was a bit off when I said 70+). Anyway you look at it, those reactors can be used to produce weapons grade plutonium, and enough of it to be really meaningful.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: N.K.'s behavior does not change the fact that after 9-11 Bush labeled them the bad guys, lest we forget the "axis of evil" speech, giving N.K. an out to abandon the agreements they were in in the supposed interest of self-defense. The U.S. poked them with a finger and they poked back. Predictable behavior as history shows. You forget, that the list of nations that Bush read in that speach were labeled in the National Intelligence circles as rogue nations and likely threats. They were also regaurded as the most likely to be the cause of mass numbers of civilian deaths. All Bush did was make it more publicly known, he didn't make any new revelations. Perhaps if Bush would have left N.K. out of the Axis of evil speech and sought to normalize relations a bit we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now. Or perhaps not. Why treat them special? THey have been on the "list" for decades, there is a reason that the 9 previous administrations to Clintons did not sell them nuclear technology. Whatever, it is a mess. Recent news from South Korea's Goverment says the U.S. has been pushing them for a military offensive, which they opposed. South Korea's reconcillitory policies of recent times shows that the U.S. is somewhat out of touch with what our ally wants. I havn't heard a peep out of SK asking Bush to go along with NK lately, as a matter of fact, they are slightly po'd that the USA (aka CLinton) Gave them the ability to wage nuclear war. Regardless, I have no love for the heartless regime that is in charge in N.K. It is a brutal and repressive regime, not to mention clever, crazy, and downright wacky. A recent Time magazine provided insight into the leader Kim something or another. What a nut-case! [img]graemlins/1dizzy.gif[/img] NK has been a nasty place for decades, it may be the best thing for the North Koreans would be a war that saw their current dictator overthrown....but it would be ugly and China would get nervous.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Funny, I wouldn't relate a bit of diplomatic charity to promote good will with a bully taking lunch money. Your right...a bully takinglunch money isn't able to launch nuclear weapons with what he extorts. Even odder, I would not make N.K. the Bully and the U.S. as the nerd either. Kind of a backwards logic that I don't get. [img]smile.gif[/img] It is NK that is trying to extort aid fromt he US.(don't do this or that or we will launch our nukes..) so it is not backward at all.

[Timber Loftis]

From today's NYTimes:

TL's OpEd: The last sentence of this article notes "Washington is searching for a diplomatic solution to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its suspected nuclear-weapons program, but has threatened Iraq with war if it fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors."

Well, this is a nice disconnect, and I posted a hilarious The Onion article on here Friday aimed at the heart of this. Nevertheless it is absolutely imperative people understand one rule of diplomacy: your diplomatic options against one nation are different than those against another, based on history, personality, culture, power, economics, and a myriad other factors too numerous to count.

Of course we talk w/ bastard Jong-il while pointing 250,000 troops at Sodamn Insane. Our diplomatic options are different. Sodamn doesn't have a few nukes capable of landing in Tokyo, for one. The US doesn't have the military manpower to staff two large actions is another.

BTW, a military contact of mine let me know a little tidbit: Even with the National Guard and Reserves being called up, forces are still spread thin. If a war in Iraq goes longer than 2 mos. OR if a compounding problem (like NK) arises on top of a war in Iraq, the draft will begin sooner than you think.

North Korea Talks Are a Success, Russian Says
By REUTERS

Filed at 10:23 a.m. ET

SEOUL/MOSCOW (Reuters) - A Russian envoy held six hours of talks Monday with reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and said he was optimistic the nuclear standoff between Pyongyang and Washington could be solved peacefully.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov emerged from the talks at a heavily guarded residence on the northern outskirts of Pyongyang to describe them as successful, but gave no details, said Russia's Itar-Tass news agency.

``The meeting was very substantive. The atmosphere was very warm,'' Losyukov said as he left to return to the Russian embassy.

``Moscow is optimistic that a solution to the crisis around North Korea can be found through peaceful means,'' he was quoted as saying.

Moscow was counting on further contacts to hammer out the details of a possible solution to the crisis, the Tass news agency quoted him as saying.

It was the first sign of a possible breakthrough in an impasse that began in October when Washington said the North had admitted to a secret nuclear weapons program.

Pyongyang later kicked out U.N. nuclear inspectors, removed the seals from a mothballed reactor and pulled out of a global treaty preventing the spread of atomic arms.

A suggestion by a senior U.S. official that the crisis should be brought before the U.N. Security Council places added pressure on Pyongyang to fall into line.

Losyukov presented Pyongyang with a set of three proposals that call for the Korean peninsula to be nuclear-free in exchange for guarantees of the North's security and for the resumption of aid to the impoverished communist state.

``We put forward our ideas on what a compromise solution to the current crisis could look like. The Korean side constructively and attentively considered these proposals,'' Losyukov was quoted as saying.

``This work cannot stop at one round of talks and demands a significant amount of time, the comparison of positions and contacts with other sides in the conflict, including the United States.''

He was believed to have given Kim, leader of the world's only communist dynasty, a message from President Vladimir Putin, Itar-Tass said. Russia is one of the few countries to maintain close ties with Pyongyang. Kim has visited Russia twice in recent years and Putin has made one trip to Pyongyang.

The Russian envoy, the first foreign diplomat to meet Kim since the crisis began, was due to return to Beijing on Tuesday.

U.S. officials have cited some progress in easing the nuclear crisis, the latest indication that Washington has moved away from its hard line of ``no talks'' by ditching a policy of refusing to reward bad behavior by the North now that the standoff has become a distraction from efforts to disarm Iraq.

A senior North Korean diplomat tried to play down fears of conflict on the divided peninsula by saying the North had no wish to harm South Korea although it would regard any U.S. move to impose sanctions as a declaration of war.

U.S. LOOKS TO SECURITY COUNCIL

Losyukov's trip is part of a flurry of diplomatic initiatives.

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, in Beijing for talks with Pyongyang's other main friend, said it was time to take the standoff to the U.N. Security Council and the council could handle the Korea problem as well as the Iraq crisis.

``I think it is now timely to bring the matter to the Security Council and I think we're confident that it could handle both Iraq and North Korea at the same time,'' he said after meeting Chinese officials.

Bolton said he did not sense that China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, was opposed to taking the issue to the council.

Taking the issue to the Security Council could be the first step to imposing sanctions on North Korea but Bolton said he had not discussed sanctions in his talks in Beijing and sanctions were not the only weapon in the Security Council's arsenal.

North Korea has said sanctions would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

South Korea said it would use meetings this week with Red Cross officials and cabinet ministers of North Korea to press Pyongyang to end the nuclear impasse.

North Korea has insisted that the United States, which a year ago bracketed the North together with Iraq and Iran in an ``axis of evil,'' is key to resolving the standoff.

``The nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula was created by the United States and must be wholly resolved with us and the United States sitting knee-to-knee,'' the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) quoted one official as telling Losyukov.

The United States has moved away from its original refusal to talk but wants the North to dismantle its nuclear program.

``NO ATTACK ON SOUTH''

In an apparent bid to drive a wedge between South Korea and the U.S. troops who have guarded it since the 1950-53 Korean War, Pyongyang's consul-general in Hong Kong told a newspaper that North Korea had no intention to attack the South.

``If the United States attacks us, we'll only go after our enemy,'' the Chinese-language Ming Pao daily quoted the diplomat, Ri To Sop, as saying.

``We and South Korea are of the same lineage and the same country, we share the same language and culture. There's no reason for us to harm our relationship with South Korea,'' he said, but repeated Pyongyang's threat to declare war if the United States imposed sanctions.

The North has 11,000 artillery pieces trained toward Seoul across the most heavily fortified frontier on earth.

Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed suggestions of war and rejected comparisons of the administration's approach to North Korea with its effort to force Iraq to disarm.

Washington is searching for a diplomatic solution to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its suspected nuclear-weapons program, but has threatened Iraq with war if it fails to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.