North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid

[FishForLunch]

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.

[madape]

This has already posted, but I think the North Korea / "Hanoi" John alliance deserves it's own thread... just in case people still wondered who will REALLY benefit from a Kerry presidency.

[Mavdog]

This has already posted, but I think the North Korea / "Hanoi" John alliance deserves it's own thread... just in case people still wondered who will REALLY benefit from a Kerry presidency.

Explain if you possibly can how the Bush Presidency has improved the Korean situation? Is there any positive change in the Korean's enriching BOTH plutonium and now uranium? The answer is no...disengagement hasn't been very productive has it?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Explain if you possibly can how the Bush Presidency has improved the Korean situation? Is there any positive change in the Korean's enriching BOTH plutonium and now uranium? The answer is no...disengagement hasn't been very productive has it?

[Mavdog]

you're joking right LRB?

The invasion of Iraq has yielded benefits for the Korean impasse?

Name me just ONE...

[LRB]

They know we're serious when we say "or else." I'm not saying that it has solved the situation, because I believe that it is far from solved. However I do see it as an improvement. They can hurt us, but we can completely destroy them. I prefer respect, but with some people, and I believe the rulers of North Korea to be such, the only thing that motivates them is fear and greed. I'm very happy if we can put the fear of the USA into them.

[FishForLunch]

Yes the situation has improved, now they are being forced to multi-lateral talks with their neighbors, China is now involved in talks and that is the key. If it was bi-lateral talk involving US and N Korea I think they will black mail the USA for concessions for non verifiable compliance. I think Kerry would prefer a fake solution like Clinton, Carter and similar demoracts as opposed to a real one.

This is why the crazy N Koreans are wishing for Kerry, so they can milk us dry with the threat of producing Nuclear Weapons.

If Terrorism and National Security is not your top concern then Kerry would be the obvious choice for the presidency.

I predict that if Kerry become the president the main stream media will NOT talk about outsourcing, jobless recovery, gay marriages,the homeless and poverty anymore.

[Mavdog]

LRB posted;

They know we're serious when we say "or else."

or else what? Are you seriously suggesting that the US would invade North Korea?
That's absurd thinking if you are....even the current administration doesn't threaten this.

and you still can't show one benefit that invading Iraq has provided the US in its negotiations with North Korea.

I'm not saying that it has solved the situation, because I believe that it is far from solved. However I do see it as an improvement. They can hurt us, but we can completely destroy them. I prefer respect, but with some people, and I believe the rulers of North Korea to be such, the only thing that motivates them is fear and greed. I'm very happy if we can put the fear of the USA into them

so, the answer to my request, that you provide ONE benefit, is that there is NONE. Thanks...I didn't believe that there were.

Fish posted:

Yes the situation has improved, now they are being forced to multi-lateral talks with their neighbors

"forced"? Just who and what "forced" the North Koreans to the talks? hint: it was NOT the US and the attack on Iraq. It was the use of diplomacy, specifically the Chinese. Sabre rattling isn't the cure all to everything (much to the chagrin of some WH folks IMHO)

China is now involved in talks and that is the key.

You mean "now' as opposed to when China was involved before? No change there...

If it was bi-lateral talk involving US and N Korea I think they will black mail the USA for concessions for non verifiable compliance. I think Kerry would prefer a fake solution like Clinton, Carter and similar demoracts as opposed to a real one.

oh, nice conjecture and assumptions. I think that Bush would prefer to blow up the whole Korean peninsula,,,although there's no truth in it, can I conjecture and assume just like you?

This is why the crazy N Koreans are wishing for Kerry, so they can milk us dry with the threat of producing Nuclear Weapons.

It's not threat mind you, they HAVE nukes. As for why they might prefer Kerry, they are frustrated that the current administration isn't sitting down and negotiating. The wisdom of the Bush administration's approach wil be decided by the success or lack of success in the future. Right now there's a lack of success as the Koreans are still enriching plutonium (and possibly now uranium) and we are watching.

If Terrorism and National Security is not your top concern then Kerry would be the obvious choice for the presidency.

Really? With all the success in nabbing those terrorists who struck our country that may not too accurate

I predict that if Kerry become the president the main stream media will NOT talk about outsourcing, jobless recovery, gay marriages,the homeless and poverty anymore.

Carnac is alive and well it seems.

[Maringa]

I'm not sure if this administration is going any further than the previous administration regarding dismantling, eliminating weapons of mass destruction that are being built in Korea, however I believe the Bush administration is at least doing a better job (I hope!) of at least containing them to the peninsula (see fairly recent articles of shipment intercepts, etc).

Choices we have:

Previous administration: negotiate to stop weapons program (didn't work, they still produced, sold weapons, etc), and pay them billions in incentives....

Current administration: Korea still building weapons, but unable to export them. We aren't pouring (other than direct humanitary supplies) money into the peninsula since Korea is not conforming to previous agreements.

Let the N. Korean eat dirt and whine all they want, and threaten us...they understand that with Bush, the end result will be annihilation if they follow through with their threats. Much more effective (and substantially cheaper) than to give them soft glove treatment. I don't think the N. Koreans have ever been threatened by this administration...Bush has simply called their bluff, hence them going back to the negotiating table, trying to get other countries involved so they can find other extortion suckers...

[madape]

Pyongyang Targeted Extortion Sucker #1

[Drbio]

Kerry eating a "real" North Korean hot "dog"

[reeds]

Bush invade N. Korea? hahaha..Bush only beats up on defenseless countries that cant fight back- innocent ones...N.Korea is guilty of WMD and Bush knows it, but...but what??? NOTHING...Bush picks his own battles...funny...N.Korea has WMDs....But we bombed the shit out of Iraq for just the thought that they might have them....why????hmmmm...Oil? finishing daddies business?? a grudge???all the above???

[madape]

Just a reminder, North Korea has nukes because Clinton and Albright LET them have nukes. Stabilization efforts prove much less cumbersome if you nip them in the bud.

[Mavdog]

No, Clinton and Albright made a deal with North Korea wherein North Korea agreed to not develop any nukes.

North Korea violated this agreement, and admitted so in 2002. GWBush responded by stopping the US part of the agreement with North Korea (food and oil).

How one can blame a President who wasn't in office, or a Sof State who wasn't in office, for Korea's actions after they left office is a mystery.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Explain if you possibly can how the Bush Presidency has improved the Korean situation? Is there any positive change in the Korean's enriching BOTH plutonium and now uranium? The answer is no...disengagement hasn't been very productive has it?

Well let me try..

1. We no longer have a deal where we give them money and oil to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons.
2. We have china, south korea, japan, russia, us putting pressure on them to disarm. Pretty go "multilateralism there 'eh"
3. We sure as hell won't have jimmy carter running over there to negotiate foreign policy.
4. And yea afghanistan, iraq and libya have a lot to do with the new posture. You think that if run-away-kerry is elected the north koreans (like the libyans) will think that the us will do a durn thing about this? If you do, please DO NOT VOTE. You are hurting your country.

There is one thing for sure. There are at LEAST 3 countries that are supporting the dimocrats and kerry.
North Korea, Iran, Syria. Oh yeah I forgot one more France.,

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: reeds
Bush invade N. Korea? hahaha..Bush only beats up on defenseless countries that cant fight back- innocent ones...N.Korea is guilty of WMD and Bush knows it, but...but what??? NOTHING...Bush picks his own battles...funny...N.Korea has WMDs....But we bombed the shit out of Iraq for just the thought that they might have them....why????hmmmm...Oil? finishing daddies business?? a grudge???all the above???

Honestly, how do you spout this junk? Who is your favorite prez?? I'm sure it was clintoon. Even clintoon thought there were WMDs there. Good grief man, that knucklehead inspector from the UN thought they had WMD. The UN security councel voted UNANIMOUSLY that they did and that if they didn't want the grown-ups (Bush and publicans) to take away their toys they had to show us how they got rid of them.

What about this is so hard for your dimocrat liberal mind to understand?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
No, Clinton and Albright made a deal with North Korea wherein North Korea agreed to not develop any nukes.

North Korea violated this agreement, and admitted so in 2002. GWBush responded by stopping the US part of the agreement with North Korea (food and oil).

How one can blame a President who wasn't in office, or a Sof State who wasn't in office, for Korea's actions after they left office is a mystery.

Uh neville chamberlin? Un how about naivity? How about irresponsibility? How can you NOT blame them for being so naive as to take the word of one of the worst dictators in the world. The most closed society in the world.

How stupid does someone have to be before they are held accountable for their actions. Good grief.. Clintoon will go down as one of the worst presidents in history. The one thing he DID try to do was negotiate the israeli-plo agreement. That turned out great TOO didn't it.

The only thing clintoon was good at was sticking his finger up, feeling the wind and going with it.

[Mavdog]

Mavdog posted

Explain if you possibly can how the Bush Presidency has improved the Korean situation? Is there any positive change in the Korean's enriching BOTH plutonium and now uranium? The answer is no...disengagement hasn't been very productive has it?

Dude posted:

Well let me try..

"try" is an apt description..

1. We no longer have a deal where we give them money and oil to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons.

uh, the deal was just the opposite. We've made progress because we have no agreement? twisted logic for sure...

2. We have china, south korea, japan, russia, us putting pressure on them to disarm. Pretty go "multilateralism there 'eh"

In contrast to the pervasive ideology that the US can be successful in ignoring our allies, we've included those most affected and they've been able to get the Koreans to sit down at a table. The use of diplomacy might resolve the situation...but NO progress has been acheived yet.

[quote]
3. We sure as hell won't have jimmy carter running over there to negotiate foreign policy.{/Q]

wow what a completely irrelevant point.

4. And yea afghanistan, iraq and libya have a lot to do with the new posture. You think that if run-away-kerry is elected the north koreans (like the libyans) will think that the us will do a durn thing about this? If you do, please DO NOT VOTE. You are hurting your country.

you do have an issue with staying on topic.
What "new posture" are you referring to? The "new posture" of militarism? That will not work with the Koreans, and is in fact part of their justification for the weapons program.
The Libyan actions should be commended...they are the result of over 6 years of discussions/negotiations, not threats of attack.

There is one thing for sure. There are at LEAST 3 countries that are supporting the dimocrats and kerry.
North Korea, Iran, Syria. Oh yeah I forgot one more France.,

ha ha. Yeah, you've really shown how the Bush administration has improved the Korean situation...

[FishForLunch]

So Mavdog what do you think Kerry will do to get N Korea to disarm?
The Democrats strategy is not to propose Solutions and Ideas, but second guess or Monday morning Quarterback every issue.

[Mavdog]

To make any headway direct dialogue should happen. At least at the last summit there was 30 min of direct dialogue, although informal.

North Korea is paranoid. Reduce that feeling of danger and progress will occur. Increase the feeling of danger and they will become more beligerent.

Guess which course the Bush administration has pursued? The one that hasn't yielded any positive results...the latter.

[dude1394]

Way to go again mavdog (er kerry). Just what the n. koreans want from us is to blackmail us AGAIN into sticking our heads in the sand and passing it on to the next guy.

So your course of action AGAIN would be to trust a paranoid dictator to keep his word.

Your infantile "NO HE DOESN"T", "NO IT DOESN"T" commentary I believe is beneath you. I know you are a pacivist and an appeaser at heart. That's fine, but it was an honest assessment (at least from my perspective) of the situation and you just jump all around. I've noticed that about liberals, they have a hard time making a point that's longer than a soundbyte. I think it must be why they loved clintoon so much.

[Mavdog]

oh...well, in that case, by all means let's attack north korea to remove that "paranoid dictator" who you contend we should not make ANY agreement with.

what, you own some stock in a nuclear waste removal company?
or maybe you've made a play for asian currencies, guessing correctly that the entire region's economy would tank?

now, THAT'S what I'd call infantile....

[madape]

I haven't read anyone on this board reccommend attacking North Korea. That's certianly not what anyone wants. In my opinion, the wacko needs to follow the Libyan example and end his nuclear arms programs. That's the only way North Korea should ever be welcomed into the world community. He needs to give them up, and he needs to provide physical evidence that he's given them up. We need inpectors on the ground, and we need them to be met with full cooperation.

Kim has proven that he can't be trusted with bilateral agreements with the US. He expelled our arms inspectors and openly declared his nuclear weapons programs because he knew the US couldn't do shit of the threat of China. In order to make any agreement with this crackpot stick, it needs the support of China, Japan and Russia. I doubt Kim will be expelling any inspectors when it feels the weight of the US, unchecked and even SUPPORTED by those three military powers bearing down upon it. That's why the Clinton program was such a devastating and collosal failure. No one in their right mind would try it again. It appears Kerry just doesn't get it.

[Mavdog]

I

haven't read anyone on this board reccommend attacking North Korea

That's exactly what dude's conclusion is.

We need inpectors on the ground, and we need them to be met with full cooperation.

certainly. A fact.

it needs the support of China, Japan and Russia. I doubt Kim will be expelling any inspectors when it feels the weight of the US, unchecked and even SUPPORTED by those three military powers bearing down upon it.

It boils down to the level of pressure Russia and mostly China agree to apply. The South tried to bribe them and that didn't work.

That's why the Clinton program was such a devastating and collosal failure. No one in their right mind would try it again. It appears Kerry just doesn't get it.

No, the prior agreement didn't work because we didn't get the other countries you mentioned above to support it. Hopefully that won't happen this time.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I

That's exactly what dude's conclusion is.

Prove it.. Pull out the quote where I said I wanted to attack N. Korea. Pull out ANY post where I proposed military action against them. Although that has to be on the table. Do you think not?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by madape

I haven't read anyone on this board reccommend attacking North Korea

originally posted by mavdog

That's exactly what dude's conclusion is.

originallt posted by dude

Prove it.. Pull out the quote where I said I wanted to attack N. Korea. Pull out ANY post where I proposed military action against them. Although that has to be on the table. Do you think not?

Let's review the previous post where you stated that to negotiate with North Korea is fruitless, and that you wouldn't enter into ANY agreement with them:

Way to go again mavdog (er kerry). Just what the n. koreans want from us is to blackmail us AGAIN into sticking our heads in the sand and passing it on to the next guy.

So your course of action AGAIN would be to trust a paranoid dictator to keep his word.

Apparently your proposal is to NOT negotiate as that's "just what the North Koreans want from us". Hmm, if we aren't going to negotiate with the North Koreans, if as you claim there is NO agreement which can be relied upon to resolve the impasse, just what beside the forceful change in governement were you suggesting would end the drama? Sounds like your advocating force to me, for unless you propose to do nothing it couldn't be anything else.

[LRB]

To have an effective negoitiation with North Korea we have to instill in them the belief that we will do whatever it takes to stop them from spreading nuclear weapons to terrorists and expanding on their nuclear weapons program. And yes in a worst case scenario that would be invasion. But there are many more direct and indirect methods that can be taken before we get there. The key is we won't turn a blind eye to them developing nuclear weapons after they have promised not to by treaty.

Now the Bush administration wants a peaceful solution if at all possible. However he will not purchase that peaceful solution by letting North Korea do what ever they damn well please as long as there is a front to put in place to make it look like their towing the line. This is the democrat solution. It's like a wife telling her husband it's ok to screw around on her so long as he's discreet. Well IMO that BS. You can go wallow in it all you want. The long and the short is you have to make a stand for what is right or you will ultimately compromise yourself into a much worse situation. Of course the dems aren't worried about this, because they'll just blame the republicans. Always have, always will. I don't want politics as usual. Give me someone who'll say get with the program or we're going kick your @$$.

We wouldn't be in this situation it Clinton has any balls worth more than getting sexual gratification on White House interns. He has to be one of the most cowardly presidents if not the most cowardly to ever serve. And coutries like North Korea took full advantage of that. And if we keep rolling over and doing nothing as they continue to proliferate nuclear weapons, we'll wake up one morning to see a giant mushroom cloud where once was New York city.

[Drbio]

"Stop!........or I may have to say stop again. Why aren't they stopping?"

-John Kerry 2005 to North Koreans regarding use of nukes

[Mavdog]

"Stop, or we won't talk to you anymore! ...what, is nobody there?"
-George Bush to the North Koreans, who then took George up on his threat and continued to enrich not only plutonium but also expanded their program to include uranium.

[Drbio]

Bush will handle that situation 1000% better than Kerry could ever hope to. He will use something that Kerry has never known.....a spine.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
"Stop, or we won't talk to you anymore! ...what, is nobody there?"
-George Bush to the North Koreans, who then took George up on his threat and continued to enrich not only plutonium but also expanded their program to include uranium.

And your point is??? I mean what more is there to say other than "stop". Either they stop and we start talking about next steps or they don't and find a way to force them to stop or at least reconsider. I don't see that we have any room for compromise without severly compromising our nations security by a country that we are still officially at war with. WTG GW!!!

[Mavdog]

LRB posted

To have an effective negoitiation with North Korea we have to instill in them the belief that we will do whatever it takes to stop them from spreading nuclear weapons to terrorists and expanding on their nuclear weapons program. And yes in a worst case scenario that would be invasion. But there are many more direct and indirect methods that can be taken before we get there. The key is we won't turn a blind eye to them developing nuclear weapons after they have promised not to by treaty.

I don't recall anybody proposing to "turn a blind eye" to the Koreans, nor do I believe that threats to invade will bring any resolution as that will only reinforce the Korean's beliefs of imminent threat. One doesn't convince a paranoid person that they shouldn't be paranoid by issueing threats and elevating their perception of the danger they are in.

Now the Bush administration wants a peaceful solution if at all possible.

No, there should be a peaceful solution period. The prospect of an armed conflict has no winners, only losers.

However he will not purchase that peaceful solution by letting North Korea do what ever they damn well please as long as there is a front to put in place to make it look like their towing the line. This is the democrat solution.

If we can "purchase that peaceful solution" by giving the Koreans food and energy to verifiably dismantaling their nuclear program, why not? As far as your statement that you know "the democrat solution", I challenge you to find such in any DNC or Kerry pronouncements. You won't, and your claim is nothing but fabrication.

It's like a wife telling her husband it's ok to screw around on her so long as he's discreet. Well IMO that BS. You can go wallow in it all you want. The long and the short is you have to make a stand for what is right or you will ultimately compromise yourself into a much worse situation.

Interesting analogy that really doesn't have any bearing on the issue. The Koreans made a deal to stop their nuclear enrichment program, provided we gave them food and oil. We found out they were not following the agreement and stopped providing what we told them we would do. How your analogy fits the facts is a mystery.

Of course the dems aren't worried about this, because they'll just blame the republicans. Always have, always will. I don't want politics as usual. Give me someone who'll say get with the program or we're going kick your @$$.

Oh no, "the dems" aren't worried...what BS. Everybody is worried about this situation.

Everything is so party this and party that in your world, is there anything that you don't march lock step with the RNC on? Independent thinking seems to not be a part of your abilities IMHO.

Rattle those sabres! Let's just "kick your ass" he screams to the Koreans...as missles head thru the air toward Seoul and Tokyo, This isn't Iraq mind you, the koreans DO have WMD...

We wouldn't be in this situation it Clinton has any balls worth more than getting sexual gratification on White House interns. He has to be one of the most cowardly presidents if not the most cowardly to ever serve. And coutries like North Korea took full advantage of that. And if we keep rolling over and doing nothing as they continue to proliferate nuclear weapons, we'll wake up one morning to see a giant mushroom cloud where once was New York city.

ah yes, blame it on Bill. Funny tho, the Koreans have embarked on their enrichment program while George was in office...there's no reason to lay the blame for the korean's actions on either president. The issue is how to move forward on an agreement that will be supported by those who the koreans won't cross, namely the chinese and russians. Yes, what is needed is that which the WH seems to have extreme difficulty with...diplomacy.

[Mavdog]

It's funny Dr. Bio, you claim "Bush will handle that situation 1000% better than Kerry could ever hope to"...well, why is it "will handle" rather than "is handling"??? Did you forget that Bush is on the job today? And that job is to resolve the situation now?

Nice Yogi Berra-ism with the "1000%" BTW.

He will use something that Kerry has never known.....a spine

Pretty hard to classify a decorated war veteran, a former prosecutor, and the person who was most responsible for uncovering the Iran Contra conspiracy as lacking "a spine". That shoe doesn't fit.
But then again, facts don't seem to stand in your way...

[LRB]

No, there should be a peaceful solution period. The prospect of an armed conflict has no winners, only losers.

This has to be one of the most inane, delusory, and utterly unrealistic ideas of all time. It is an extremist view point on par with it's opposite view that there are no winners in a nonpeaceful solution, only losers for it's extremism. It would be nice if all the people that we had to deal with were sane and reasonable, then maybe this could be true. However that is not the practical situation in the world nor with the North Korean leadership. Combine paranoia with megalomania and an obsessive desire to increace their power and dominance as is the case with the leaders of North Korea, and I would hardly call such people sane nor reasonable.

Without armed conflict we would have a totaliarian government ruled by a single despot. Almost all if not all of our personal freedoms would be sacrificed. There needs to always exist an balance between armed conflict and peace if we are not to live in abject slavery. Of course too much armed conflict is detrimental. But so is too little. The practical solution is to reason peacable solutions with those who can be reasoned with, and then pay for our freedom with armed conflict with those who can't be reasoned with. Freedom is never free, and must be paid for with the lives of the innocent and the guilty. You may prefer to live as a slave than die as a free man, but I certainly will never fall into that category. As in the immortal words of Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

I certainly hope and pray for a peaceful solution. But I do not believe that peace is possible without the willingness to go to war to protect your freedoms.

[Mavdog]

It is “inane” and “delusory” to understand that a country with the ability to launch nuclear weapons against its neighbors should not be attacked? Not in the least, in fact it is not only inane and delusory but also illogical to embrace escalating the situation. If you recall, MAD was the reason there was not an armed conflict between the US and USSR and it was NOT an “extremist view”. This impasse bears much the same connotations as MAD, at least to Korea’s neighbors. Following your logic we should have attacked the USSR back in the ‘60’s, yet if that had been our government’s logic we would not be here today but rather we would all most likely be dead of radiation poisoning from the nuclear war that would have resulted. Now THAT would have been logic one can classify as “inane’ and “delusory” yet you propose it today.

No one is calling the North Koreans “sane and reasonable”, yet that doesn’t preclude the possibility that an agreement could be reached. They have the basic goal of self-preservation, and that should be sufficient to reach an accommodation. They produce nuclear materials for a) in their mind protection from attack, and b) for the currency the sale brings. Reduce their fear of attack, provide economic assistance so they don’t need the money, and an agreement can be found.

The interjection of Patrick Henry’s famous quote of “"Give me liberty, or give me death!" is very patriotic but also dripping with a belief that North Kore threatens our country's ideals. Reminds me of all the talk about an “imminent danger” and the “threat to our nation’s security” that was laid on the need to attack Iraq, and have yet to be shown as factual. North Korea is a threat to our liberty? Bit of a stretch there….to justify an attack on North Korea as protecting our freedoms is as nonsensical as it comes.You wrap the desire to attack in the cloth of protecting our freedoms, yet there is no such connection to our liberty.

This situation is a rebuttal of the Bush Doctrine (like we ned to see one after Iraq) and exposes that Doctrine as the fallacious and dangerous theory it is.

[LRB]

Apparently you are a poor student of history Mavdog. The US and the former USSR participated in armed conflicts on opposite sides several times during the cold war, including the 60's. Those armed conflicts did not escalate into any type of nuclear exchange. In fact by opposing them with force most likely prevented a nuclear conflict. If we had simply disarmed ourself and given them all our money, the soviets would control America today. Even if we stayed armed but gave them economic apeasements, they would have continued their agression if there was no abating resistance to their armed agression or threat there of. If we had not opposed the USSR during the Cuban missle crisis alone, it's highly likely they would have attempted a premptive strike with belief right or wrong that they could remove our threat to them before we could cause them serious harm.

No one is calling the North Koreans “sane and reasonable”, yet that doesn’t preclude the possibility that an agreement could be reached.

I don't think that anyone hear has said that a peaceful agreement to satisfactory resolve this conflict while still maintaining our essential principles is impossible. In fact I would say that all that have posted hear wish this to happen as well as the current administration.

They have the basic goal of self-preservation, and that should be sufficient to reach an accommodation. They produce nuclear materials for a) in their mind protection from attack, and b) for the currency the sale brings. Reduce their fear of attack, provide economic assistance so they don’t need the money, and an agreement can be found.

Hmmm, sounds like the tactics that were used against Hitler. It only made things worse and caused the deaths of tens of millions of people and the extreme suffering of many more. In fact throughout history this has been tried with unsuccessful results. Once you cave into the extortion of individuals like the North Korean leadership they generally, at least according to historical precedent, want more and more. In fact the only way to win is the exact opposite. To instill the fear that you can remove MAD and utterly destroy them with little or no damage to yourself and to put the clamps on them economically. That's how we won the cold war and ended the greatest nuclear threat this world has ever seen. There is absolutely no historical precedent that I know of that supports your resolution to a potential nuclear conflict. In essence there is little difference between your position, and making it legal for the mod to extort businesses for "protection" except for the scale.

Even if we reduce the fear and give economic concessions, the North Koreans will most likely continue development of nuclear arms and seek to sale them as they did in the past. Remember we made a treaty with them. Gave them assurances of protection and gave them economic benefits. They just went behind our backs.

You are extemely naive if you cannot see the threat that a country making and selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder poses to our freedom and national security. Of course the only sure way to prove it would be to have one or more of our major cities nuked. Maybe that would make you happy, but it would be a terrible atrocity to me.

But the most disturbing idea that you have strongly alluded to is peace at any price above armed conflict. If you do not believe at peace at any price besides armed conflict, how high a price are you willing to pay?

[Mavdog]

Apparently you are a poor student of history Mavdog. The US and the former USSR participated in armed conflicts on opposite sides several times during the cold war, including the 60's.

Show me that "armed conflict" between the US and the USSR, would you? Being the "poor student of history" maybe I forgot those battles where the US and the USSR fought "armed conflicts".
hint: There were NONE. The US battled others (like N Korea and N Vietnam) but NEVER fought each other. The shoe of a "poor student" fits your feet, not mine.

Those armed conflicts did not escalate into any type of nuclear exchange. In fact by opposing them with force most likely prevented a nuclear conflict.

uh huh. No idea what MAD was, do you? That is what stopped either side from engaging in a nuclear attack. In that you've shown to be a "poor student of history" your lack of understanding is excused.

I'd love to hear your rationale for the premise that "opposing them with force likely prevented a nuclear conflict". How irrational.

If we had simply disarmed ourself and given them all our money, the soviets would control America today. Even if we stayed armed but gave them economic apeasements, they would have continued their agression if there was no abating resistance to their armed agression or threat there of. If we had not opposed the USSR during the Cuban missle crisis alone, it's highly likely they would have attempted a premptive strike with belief right or wrong that they could remove our threat to them before we could cause them serious harm.

Nice verbage about absolutely nothing to do with the North Korean dilemna. Noone I know is proposing we "disarmed ouself", nor proposing "economic appeasement". There needs to be an agreement wherein the North Koreans agree to verifiably stop there nuclear program, that's as simple as it gets.

I don't think that anyone hear has said that a peaceful agreement to satisfactory resolve this conflict while still maintaining our essential principles is impossible. In fact I would say that all that have posted hear wish this to happen as well as the current administration.

Didn't read dude's posts, huh?

mavdog posted:

They have the basic goal of self-preservation, and that should be sufficient to reach an accommodation. They produce nuclear materials for a) in their mind protection from attack, and b) for the currency the sale brings. Reduce their fear of attack, provide economic assistance so they don’t need the money, and an agreement can be found.

LRB posted:

Hmmm, sounds like the tactics that were used against Hitler. It only made things worse and caused the deaths of tens of millions of people and the extreme suffering of many more. In fact throughout history this has been tried with unsuccessful results. Once you cave into the extortion of individuals like the North Korean leadership they generally, at least according to historical precedent, want more and more.

As you are a "poor student of history" I'll correct your misconceptions.
Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler was true appeasement; it allowed Hitler to a) keep the Sudentenland he occupied, b) allowed him to continue with the abrogation of the Versailles Treaty by not stopping his military build-up which that Treaty disallowed, c) gave him the moxie to invade Chech. and d) because of all the above gave him the idea that nothing of consequence would happen if he continued with his aggressive posture.

Reaching an agreement that stops the Korean's nuclear program isn't analogous in the least, in fact it is polar opposite.

In fact the only way to win is the exact opposite. To instill the fear that you can remove MAD and utterly destroy them with little or no damage to yourself and to put the clamps on them economically.

Just how do you propose to "remove MAD and utterly destroy them with little or no damage to yourself"?? Economically the country is a bed case. The elite continue to live well while the plebs are without. Just what "clamps" can we apply? none. Your course of action is ludicrous.

That's how we won the cold war and ended the greatest nuclear threat this world has ever seen. There is absolutely no historical precedent that I know of that supports your resolution to a potential nuclear conflict. In essence there is little difference between your position, and making it legal for the mod to extort businesses for "protection" except for the scale.

No, the Cold War was won as the USSR collapsed economically, while the pop was able to see the difference between their system and ours. It was not thru armed conflict BTW.

If you wish to call it extortion, sobeit. We want the nukes gone, they have them amnd will give them up for a price. The deal with Libya, following the same reationale, would also be called extortion...but I for one am glad to pay the $ for a safer world. The only question is why don't you want to save potential loss of lives/economic calamity in exchange for an agreement that might possibly contain monetary payment? Do you level the same criticism at the accord with Libya? Why not?

Even if we reduce the fear and give economic concessions, the North Koreans will most likely continue development of nuclear arms and seek to sale them as they did in the past.

Your crystal ball must be a wonderful tool! What, you don't have a crystal ball and you can't tell the future? All the above is conjecture and assumption? Thought so...

Remember we made a treaty with them. Gave them assurances of protection and gave them economic benefits. They just went behind our backs.

Actually they threw it in our face.
The prior agreement did NOT give them "assurances of protection" and the economic benefits were oil/energy.

You are extemely naive if you cannot see the threat that a country making and selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder poses to our freedom and national security. Of course the only sure way to prove it would be to have one or more of our major cities nuked. Maybe that would make you happy, but it would be a terrible atrocity to me.

The Koreans have nuclear material, they have a bomb or two, and that today is a threat to their neighbors. Should they sell a bomb, or nuclear materials, that would escalate the situation. So far they have not, and this is one of the primary reasons that they should be engaged in negotiations ASAP. See, I view a sense of urgency to avoid the very scenario you describe. The cureewnt administration doesn't seem to share that sense of urgency BTW.

But the most disturbing idea that you have strongly alluded to is peace at any price above armed conflict. If you do not believe at peace at any price besides armed conflict, how high a price are you willing to pay?

Nice way to put words in my post such a "peace at any price besides armed conflict" while what I have said is that armed conflict is a no win scenario; negotiations can lead to a verifiable agreement that removes the nuclear materials; we need to utilize our allies, much to the chagrin of our WH use the one thing they abhor, diplomacy, to acheive these goals.
Nice try in twisting what I have said...too bad your attempt failed.

This is an example where an armed attack isn't the best course. I never stated that armed conflict NEVER is the best course but in the Korean situation armed conflict is the complete wrong course.

[LRB]

Show me that "armed conflict" between the US and the USSR, would you? Being the "poor student of history" maybe I forgot those battles where the US and the USSR fought "armed conflicts".
hint: There were NONE. The US battled others (like N Korea and N Vietnam) but NEVER fought each other. The shoe of a "poor student" fits your feet, not mine.

Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Cambodia, are just a few place El Salvador. Oh wait, you don't count the conflict as taking place between the two powers unless both sides are in the traditional military outfits of both nations and waving their flags as they fight. Silly me. Then Bush can end this peacefully by giving the Japanese a handful of nukes and letting them push the button to send North Korea back to the stone age. After all in this solution the US committed no act of war against N Korea. It was all the Japanese. [img]i/expressions/rolleye.gif[/img] Which is ridiculous as is your sertion. When one side arms, trains, economically supports, and provides "advisors" who "unofficially" take place in the direct fighting with either like forces from the other side or in many cases regular forces from the other side. Of course the Cuban missile crisis did invlove both militaries from the US and USSR. We're not even talking about the many "black" ops that probably took place, but won't be revealed in full detail for decades.

I'd love to hear your rationale for the premise that "opposing them with force likely prevented a nuclear conflict". How irrational.

It's very simple, when the other side takes an agressive action with force or threat thereof against you or one of your friends you counter that by using a similar force. This defines boundaries for their behavior. When used early with small applications of force at the most, it prevents the risks of greater escalation. However if the boundaries aren't set early enough, then usually the only response is full scale reprisal with force or capitalization. This is a highly documented aspect of human relations. The only irrational aspect is your dismisal without providing any sound reasoning for doing so.

uh huh. No idea what MAD was, do you? That is what stopped either side from engaging in a nuclear attack. In that you've shown to be a "poor student of history" your lack of understanding is excused.

Well unless you meant that MAD was something other than Mutual Assured Destruction, which is the most logical and common definition in the context that you used it, I'm very familiar with it. MAD in this instance does work but has weak points. The primary weak point is if conflicts escalate until the point that nuclear war and taking the microscopic chance that you might be able to take out enough of your opponents forces to have some of your side survive. The alternative being let your opponent take out your ability to completely destroy him. The easiest way to prevent this is to establish boundaries early and halt the conflicts before they get anywhere near that level. The Cuban missle crisis was probably the closest we ever came to nuclear war. Had we waited any later to intervene, it's very likely the things could have escalated out of control.

Noone I know is proposing we "disarmed ouself", nor proposing "economic appeasement". There needs to be an agreement wherein the North Koreans agree to verifiably stop there nuclear program, that's as simple as it gets.

Actually by not stoping the N Korean nuclear program we put our selves in a strategically disadvantageous ability with limited ability to protect our citizens. To me that equates to disarmament. And I believe your proposal to do nothing until N Korea agrees peacefully has a high probability for this to occur. And you have condoned giving economic concession to N Korea to maintain achieve a peaceful resolution. I cannot see that as anything other than economic appeasement. The best negoiation techniques rely on a carrot and a stick. The carrot is that if you behave we'll be friends with you and we make a very good friend. The stick is that if you don't behave then we'll be your enemy and you than means we will use force to make you behave. To have a reasonable chance to assure disarmament, and not just another empty promise, in a timely manner we need the very real threat that we will do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves and our interests including removing the leadership of N Korea from power by force. That's as simple as it gets. The N Korean leaders might be crazy but they're not totally stupid. If they believe that not complying with our demands will be met with no significant reprisals, then it would most likely benefit them to not comply. Sure it's not a certainty. But it's a lot more probable than them complying out of the goodness of their hearts.

As you are a "poor student of history" I'll correct your misconceptions.
Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler was true appeasement; it allowed Hitler to a) keep the Sudentenland he occupied, b) allowed him to continue with the abrogation of the Versailles Treaty by not stopping his military build-up which that Treaty disallowed, c) gave him the moxie to invade Chech. and d) because of all the above gave him the idea that nothing of consequence would happen if he continued with his aggressive posture.

Reaching an agreement that stops the Korean's nuclear program isn't analogous in the least, in fact it is polar opposite.

Are there differences betweent he N Korean situationand the one with Hitler? Yes there are. But are they polar opposites? Not hardly. Are they analogous? Most definitely. Remember to be analogous there need only be some similarities. So what do they have in common? Hitler ruled a totalitarian government and N Korea is a totalitarian government. Hitler had desires to conquer his neighbors and so does N Korea. Hitler broke treaties to build up military forces and so did N Korea. The international community did nothing substantial to halt Hilters violation of treaties until war was immenient. So far the international community hasn't done anything signifcant to halt N Korea's treaty violations. It appears without deterring N Korea's nuclear buildup that it becomes ever more likely one of those nukes will be used and result in war. There are many more similarities that I could draw. You would need to find an individual like Mother Terresa to have a polar opposite of Hitler. Surely you're not suggesting that the N Korean leaders are highly comparable to Mother Terresa are you?

Just how do you propose to "remove MAD and utterly destroy them with little or no damage to yourself"?? Economically the country is a bed case. The elite continue to live well while the plebs are without. Just what "clamps" can we apply? none. Your course of action is ludicrous.

1st of all we don't have MAD between the US and N Korea. Right know they reportedly only have the ability to hurt us, while we can completely destroy them. If we let them continue to develop nukes and sell them, then they may well gain the power to destroy us. So the best bet is not to let them continue to develop even if it means taking direct military actions. I don't believe that economic sanctions would be highly effective against N Korea for the reason you mention, that they are a basket case economically already. Now we if we can eliminate the delivery platforms for their nukes before they launch we can prevent damage to ourselves. If we can eliminate the nukes them selves we can eliminate damage ourselves. If we obtain control of the either of these items before launch we can eliminate damage. If we can foster regime change from within, we could possibly obtain a government more likely to deal reasonably with the nukes. We could also develop ways to eliminate the nukes after being launched but before reaching a destination that they can do damage. There are many possibilities here. Of course there are no absolute guarrantees that any will succeed. But there are no absolute guarrantees in life, except maybe for death.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we reduce the fear and give economic concessions, the North Koreans will most likely continue development of nuclear arms and seek to sale them as they did in the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your crystal ball must be a wonderful tool! What, you don't have a crystal ball and you can't tell the future? All the above is conjecture and assumption? Thought so...

This has to be one of your most asinine statements ever. I'm only predicting that the North Koreans would continue to respond similarly if we continued to act similarly towards them. So if we don't change our behavior significantly whay should they. I never said it was an absolute assurance. In fact you seem to be the only one who speaks of being absolutely sure of what will happend in the future. And it totally inane to accuse me of conjecture and assumption like there is something wrong with that when your arguments are the same conjecture and assumption.

Actually they threw it in our face.
The prior agreement did NOT give them "assurances of protection" and the economic benefits were oil/energy.

Actually any treaty between nations at the very minimum has some level of implied assurance of nonagression as long as the terms of of the treaty are followed. Since N Korea violated this treaty, of course there was no assurance of protection. Had they kept to the terms, then they would have had some assurance of nonagression which IMO equates to assurances of protection.

Nice way to put words in my post such a "peace at any price besides armed conflict" while what I have said is that armed conflict is a no win scenario; negotiations can lead to a verifiable agreement that removes the nuclear materials; we need to utilize our allies, much to the chagrin of our WH use the one thing they abhor, diplomacy, to acheive these goals.
Nice try in twisting what I have said...too bad your attempt failed.

This is an example where an armed attack isn't the best course. I never stated that armed conflict NEVER is the best course but in the Korean situation armed conflict is the complete wrong course.

Actually I didn't twist your words at all. I simply gave you my interpretation of the logical consequence of following your words to the letter. Then I gave you an opportunity, which you ignored, to detail where exceptions would be made in your absolute extremist view. Yet all you do is produce another similar statemtent. You say armed conflict is the complete "wrong" course in the Korean situation. Since you give no claification of there being exceptions and do claify your statement by preceeding the adjective "wrong" with the modifying adverb of "complete", then it is only logical to assume that you meant under no concievable circumstances would you agree that war would be the correct course in the Korean situation. So if N Korea doesn't disarm their nukes and keeps producing them, then war is still wrong. If we find out they are selling nukes to terrorist organizations like Al Queda, then war is still wrong. If one of those nukes is used on the US then war is still wrong. At what point if any would you condone warfare?

[Mavdog]

No LRB, proxies don't count as "armed conflict between the US and the USSR" (in spite of an irreverent anecdote about Japan launching nukes) in the context of nuclear response. Remember, that is what the North korea situation is. Your assertion that the regional conflicts prevented the US and USSR from fighting each other ignores history. When did any proxy have nukes?
No launchs of nukes...the answer is Mutually Assured Destruction. Well, from what we can tell the koreans can now produce that same MAD with their neighbors.

When Korea developed nukes the rules changed in how we deal with them. When they showed the ability to deliver them to Tokyo they changed further. Your radical and extremist rhetoric just doesn't sound too inviting when looked through the probable result of a charred, nuclear damaged landscape of a couple Japanese and Korean cities. You seem to miss the small point that we're talking about millions of lives.

You propose a "carrot and stick" approach and talk of "boundaries". You're probably a great parent, these are great for kids. Unfortunately tho the WH doesn't share your same view on Korea, offerring nary a carrot to go with the stick you propose they use.

The only conjecture and assumption I am making is a) North Korea has nukes, b) they feel threatened, and c) if attacked they could deliver tose nukes to high pop areas. You tell me where that is not reasonable. Your presumption that the north koreans will continue to develop nukes in spite of an agreement not to has nothing in common.

The US NEVER has given any assurance of non-agression to N. Korea, so much for your "very minimum" of our last agreement.

As far as any future actions by Korea that would change the dynamic, that will will addressed when Korea does such. Today there is no rational reason to attack North korea, and to consider an attack is to ignore the consequences of MAD. That's easy for you to contemplate here in Texas, much different if you're within 1000 miles of North Korea.

[LRB]

No LRB, proxies don't count as "armed conflict between the US and the USSR" (in spite of an irreverent anecdote about Japan launching nukes) in the context of nuclear response. Remember, that is what the North korea situation is. Your assertion that the regional conflicts prevented the US and USSR from fighting each other ignores history. When did any proxy have nukes?
No launchs of nukes...the answer is Mutually Assured Destruction. Well, from what we can tell the koreans can now produce that same MAD with their neighbors.

So if the US gives South Korea all the military hardware and trains them in the use of it it would not be the US making any move. Then if the US gives the South Koreans a few billion in economic aid to launch a military strike against N Korea still it doesn't count as a military strike by the US. Now let's intermingle US military and paramilitary aids throughout the S Korean forces, but not wearing their US uniforms, this still doesn't count as military action by the US. Wow maybe this is what Bush should do instead.

As for adding the N Koreans to the list that could be reasonably counted as MAD against the US, that is highly debatable. Sure they have shown the possibility of striking against some areas of US allies. However it is not proved that they have sufficient nuclear weapons to insure that they would be able to respond after a premptive military strike by the US and her allies. This is also a key component of MAD. However the longer we wait to disarm N Korea the more likely they are to achieve this 2nd component. So if it could be realistically shown that a premptive military strike would produce a much smaller percentage chance of a successful N Korean military strike than not taking the action, then it would be justifiable. After all the goal is to do everything reasonable to prevent a nuclear holocaust among ourselves and our allies.

Even after the collapse of the USSR, there was an incident regarding the innocent launch of a Finnish scientific rocket which reportedly cause Boris Yeltsin to come within 60 seconds of a nuclear launch.
Link

When Korea developed nukes the rules changed in how we deal with them. When they showed the ability to deliver them to Tokyo they changed further. Your radical and extremist rhetoric just doesn't sound too inviting when looked through the probable result of a charred, nuclear damaged landscape of a couple Japanese and Korean cities. You seem to miss the small point that we're talking about millions of lives.

I am fully cognisant of the potential damage that could be inflicted by a nuclear device released upon a major population center. What you fail to realize if that lack of military action by the US does not guarrantee that this won't happen, nor does military action by the US guarrantee that it will. You seem to miss the point that I am talking about the possibility of saving millions of lives. Even in a worst case scenario, there is a huge difference between nuking a handful of S Korean and Japanese cities and nuking dozens of cities world wide. The scary fact about nuclear weapons in the hands of the N Koreans is that there is a distinct possibility that our only choices could be how many cities will be nuke, a few or a lot. There is no guarrantee that the nuclear weapons won't be used no matter what course of action we take. Now we are down solely to talking about which actions will result with the lowest overall chance of damage.

You propose a "carrot and stick" approach and talk of "boundaries". You're probably a great parent, these are great for kids. Unfortunately tho the WH doesn't share your same view on Korea, offerring nary a carrot to go with the stick you propose they use.

A false concept. The carrot is there in that we won't take action if the threat is removed, also relations would be much better to achieve better relations between our countries.

The only conjecture and assumption I am making is a) North Korea has nukes, b) they feel threatened, and c) if attacked they could deliver tose nukes to high pop areas. You tell me where that is not reasonable. Your presumption that the north koreans will continue to develop nukes in spite of an agreement not to has nothing in common.

Do you really believe the things that you right or are you just totally out of touch with reality? You wrote and I quote: "but in the Korean situation armed conflict is the complete wrong course." Now since that predisposes what will occur in the future if we take military action. Do you have a crystal ball that you can tell with absolute certainty that this will be worse than no action. Can you promise that there is zero chance that N Korean won't launch a nuclear strike before the end of the year if the US doesn't take military action? Can you promise with 100% certainty that the US couldn't destroy N Korea's ability to launch nuclear strikes with a premptive military strike before any could be launched? If not your are spilling nothing but conjecture and assumption.

The US NEVER has given any assurance of non-agression to N. Korea, so much for your "very minimum" of our last agreement.

Not true. Currently we are operating under a 50+ year cease fire agreement, which is a pact of non-agression under a limited set of circumstances. And I said that there is an implied agreement of non-agression with a signed treaty. Does that mean that we most definitely won't commit any agressive action? No. Of course no level of formal treaty can guarrantee that. But certain actions make it less likely, and the Clinton pack with N Korea definitely would have made US agressive action much less likely if N Korea had abided by the treaty terms. That treaty would have brought severe political repercussions on any administration launching unprovoked agressive actions against N Korea both domestically and internationally.

As far as any future actions by Korea that would change the dynamic, that will will addressed when Korea does such. Today there is no rational reason to attack North korea, and to consider an attack is to ignore the consequences of MAD. That's easy for you to contemplate here in Texas, much different if you're within 1000 miles of North Korea.

How many family members do you have in S Korea and Japan? Well I have at least 3. And if I lived there as well I would still take the same position, but I believe that being firm with N Korea provides the best protection for those citizens of Korea and Japan as well as the US.