How will the Bush Administration Respond to N. Korea?

[Riverwind]

It is not the fault of Bush Snr, Clinton or Bush Jnr. North Korea is a remnant of the Cold War that no one really knew how to deal with or even whether it was worth dealing with. All US administrations since the collapse of the Soviet Union have worked actively to control nuclear weapons and to reign in rogue regimes.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I usually don't see the point of blaming past administrations for mistakes. However, it becomes an important issue when others seek to advance a partisan agenda based on a selective interpretation of history. I was responding to a poster that sought to justify an aggressive approach with Iran based on the 'evidence' that Clinton's strategy of engagement with NK failed. The only response to such an assertion to point out how Bush contributed to the current situation (which I probably could have done in a less partisan way...)

Canada, Iceland, Finland, Mexico and Botswana are all "small" countries and none are seeking nuclear weapons.

A red herring. None of those countries has been threatened by the US. If I was the leader of a country named as a member of the 'axis of evil' by a US president I would be building nukes as fast as possible.

Here's the irony. The US, a country with a 2nd amendment, is about to enforce gun control on the rest of the world. But in Canada, people who favour banning hunting rifles are willing to let a psychotic have access to a nuclear device.

The point is there is nothing _we_ can do about it. This problem has to be solved by China and South Korea since they are the countries that will experience the fallout (literal and figurative) from any attempt to take the nukes away from the psychotic.

[sharkman]

This is a mess from the Clinton administration. They signed a treaty with NK that gave NK millions to not develop nuclear weapons. NK took the cash and didn't live up to their agreement. It's too late now to try and take the weapons away.mp

What crap. North Korea has said over and over again that it wants nuclear weapons to protect itself from a US invasion. North Korea likely restarted its nuclear program the second US troops entered it Iraq. IOW Bush deserves 100% of the blame for the current situation. Anyone who denies this link or worse, tries to pin North Korea problem on Clinton is so friggen naive and blindly partisan it is scary. Even today NK has repeated its demand that the US sign a 'non-agression' pact - more evidence that the Bush regime's refusal to engage in constructive dialog with NK is what lead directly to the restarted nuclear problem.

This lesson should not be lost on the world. Iran has learned it. Sign a treaty and do whatever the hell you want. Will the U.S. do the same thing and expect different results? Not while Bush is in power.

The lesson the world needs to take from this if powerful nations like the US invade countries without UN approval then small countries will build nukes to protect themselves from the US. What the world needs is regime change in the US that puts in place a leader that understands the nature of cause and effect.

Riverwind, if you can't remember Jimmy Carter going over to NK, maybe you should brush up on your history. I notice you believe what Kim Jong says, why he wanted nuclear weapons. Perhaps your crapometer is out of adjustment. Kim lies whenever he thinks it will benefit him, hence pulling one over on the Clinton Administration. If Jong won't abide by agreements, it's ironic he now wants the U.S. to sign on to another one.

A regime change in the U.S.? No doubt one that aids the spread of militant Islam across the globe.

The U.S. treated NK somewhat like Cuba, hoping it would stay a regional problem, but it didn't.

[jdobbin]

Riverwind, if you can't remember Jimmy Carter going over to NK, maybe you should brush up on your history. I notice you believe what Kim Jong says, why he wanted nuclear weapons. Perhaps your crapometer is out of adjustment. Kim lies whenever he thinks it will benefit him, hence pulling one over on the Clinton Administration. If Jong won't abide by agreements, it's ironic he now wants the U.S. to sign on to another one.

A regime change in the U.S.? No doubt one that aids the spread of militant Islam across the globe.

The U.S. treated NK somewhat like Cuba, hoping it would stay a regional problem, but it didn't.

If it helps Bush to blame Clinton for this, then let him.

It is now Bush's problem. What is he doing about it?

[B. Max]

It is now Bush's problem. What is he doing about it?

Actually Bush doesn't have to do anything. It is really China's problem. In fact, the bastardized child they inherited do to their meddling in the Korean war has come home to haunt them. I kinda like seeing them twist in the wind.

[jdobbin]

Actually Bush doesn't have to do anything. It is really China's problem. In fact, the bastardized child they inherited do to their meddling in the Korean war has come home to haunt them. I kinda like seeing them twist in the wind.

With 40,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, it does seem to be Bush's problem. If Kim thinks the U.S. won't respond because he will use nukes, North Korea could pour into South Korea.

How would it be China's problem then?

[sharkman]

Funny to see some of those that were dead against Bush solving the Iraq problem now want him to solve the North Korea one.

[newbie]

How about we wait until we see if it was a "nuclear" test or not? This is probably KJ just pissing in the wind.

[jdobbin]

Funny to see some of those that were dead against Bush solving the Iraq problem now want him to solve the North Korea one.

Iraq was being dealt with. People questioned the need to invade given the logistics of having to occupy Iraq and make it a peaceful place.

It seems more and more Republicans are beginning to see the need for a change in policy in Iraq.

As far as North Korea goes, Bush identified them as the axis of evil. I think Kim believed he was next for invasion. Was he wrong?

[B. Max]

With 40,000 U.S. troops in South Korea, it does seem to be Bush's problem. If Kim thinks the U.S. won't respond because he will use nukes, North Korea could pour into South Korea.

How would it be China's problem then?

That's simple. This lose connon is right on China's doorstep. They have threatened to attack Japan's cities. Japan is seriously considering building there own nukes. China doesn't want that given their history with china. If the north attacks the south again the US will be involved and China doesn't want that either. China doesn't want an uncontrolled collapse of the north because it would mean an uncontrolled flood of people into China. Their only real option is to invade NK themselves and take out the lose cannon, and try to stabilize the country from within at the same time. Who would complain and number two of the axis of evil can be taken off the list.

[jdobbin]

That's simple. This lose connon is right on China's doorstep. They have threatened to attack Japan's cities. Japan is seriously considering building there own nukes. China doesn't want that given their history with china. If the north attacks the south again the US will be involved and China doesn't want that either. China doesn't want an uncontrolled collapse of the north because it would mean an uncontrolled flood of people into China. Their only real option is to invade NK themselves and take out the lose cannon, and try to stabilize the country from within at the same time. Who would complain and number two of the axis of evil can be taken off the list.

So Bush can write this one off?

[B. Max]

So Bush can write this one off?

It all depends on how he plays his cards.

[jdobbin]

It all depends on how he plays his cards.

Perhaps he can pull the 40,000 U.S. troops out of South Korea if it is China's problem.

[B. Max]

Perhaps he can pull the 40,000 U.S. troops out of South Korea if it is China's problem.

Yeah perhaps he can. Once China takes care of its problem. Bonus!

[sharkman]

I'm not sure this is China's problem. They could be China's ally. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. China could be playing this situation to let it be a problem for the U.S. Let it be a burden for their resources. Watch what they do. China's not going to do any favours for the U.S.

Jong has never claimed to be afraid of what China might do, only the U.S. if I remember correctly.

[B. Max]

I'm not sure this is China's problem. They could be China's ally. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. China could be playing this situation to let it be a problem for the U.S. Let it be a burden for their resources. Watch what they do. China's not going to do any favours for the U.S.

Jong has never claimed to be afraid of what China might do, only the U.S. if I remember correctly.

There is no doubt that China has kept this nut bar regime in place all these years to be a thorn in the side of the US. However when the price of that becomes a regional arms build up among countries that are not allies of China but those of the US then the price is to high and game is up and this nut bars days are numbered. When China decides to pull the plug on this guy he's gone.

[August1991]

Funny to see some of those that were dead against Bush solving the Iraq problem now want him to solve the North Korea one.

Before Leftists called themselves "progessives", they called themselves "activists".

Bush Jnr was too active, now not enough.

I suspect the word "progressive" will soon be traded for a better, more "accurate" word. The Left confuses changing the symbol of words for change in the real world.

[BubberMiley]

Funny to see some of those that were dead against Bush solving the Iraq problem now want him to solve the North Korea one.

Maybe because this one isn't totally imaginary and based on oil reserves.

[Liam]

I find it funny that once the Bush supporters are confronted with, "OK, Clinton screwed up ten years ago, but now this is Bush's issue to tackle" an atomic North Korea suddenly becomes a problem only for China, South Korea and Japan, not Bush.

[Liam]

Here's a 2003 article from the UK's Guardian for the Bush apologists among us...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,952196,00.html

[B. Max]

Here's a 2003 article from the UK's Guardian for the Bush apologists among us...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,952196,00.html

There is nothing to apologize for. It looks like Dole took Rumsfeld's advice to oppose the sale.

Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser.

[sharkman]

And now for something completely different: Here's a clip of a Rep ad that David Zucker came up with. Personally I have a hard time believing Zucker actually thought this would be accepted for the campaign, but it's pretty funny stuff.

As to the earlier comments about me blaming Clinton and claiming it's now China's problem, it's true that Bush must deal with it now. He has correctly seen that bi-lateral talks are fruitless. China and the other nations in the region need to also be involved. A partial naval blockade has been announced, and Japan has announced it will refuse all NK ships. Last year, there were 580 such NK ships.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that China will get caught slipping aid to NK under the table.

[BubberMiley]

He has correctly seen that bi-lateral talks are fruitless.

And now we have seen that his approach of multilateral talks are fruitless too. Though he hasn't seen it yet because, like in Iraq, this administration is too insecure to admit when their approach is a failure, so they stay the unsuccessful course no matter what happens.

[sharkman]

He has correctly seen that bi-lateral talks are fruitless.

And now we have seen that his approach of multilateral talks are fruitless too. Though he hasn't seen it yet because, like in Iraq, this administration is too insecure to admit when their approach is a failure, so they stay the unsuccessful course no matter what happens.

Actally Bush has seen it, when NK walked out on a 6 nation multilateral talks about a year ago. It was in the news.

[Chrissy1979]

Bush has been going on all week about how his multilateral solution might still work. Someone needs to tell him it's too late.