Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Ugh. North Korea.

Frankly, I’d have supported a humanitarian intervention in NK far more than I did the invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we have to step lightly because of their suspected nuclear arsenal, plus the whole no-oil thing…

Just an observation:

we are told we need to wait until another country actually has nuclear or other weapons before we are allowed to use our military power against them. Yet, once they have those weapons, we really cant go in cause they might blow the crap out of their southern neibhors with those same weapons. If that is the doctrine that many people say we need to stand by, i do not see how we could ever stop a country who is not interested in diplomacy from not obtaining and keeping nuclear weapons if they have the money and scientists.

(NOTE: this is NOT about Iraq, but relating to some of the arguments I have heard around the issue- again, i am NOT saying this is why I supported the Iraq war, so do not turn this into that issue- ok, i feel better now)

Misha —- I agree with you. By the time they have nukes it’s already too late.

I think we need to stop treating this from a “crime management” viewpoint, as if it were just a more serious version of street crime. Charge them, prosecute them, sentence them. It just doesn’t work with people like Kim Jong.

Talking with Kim Jong only helps him buy more time. And just like weakness with terrorists sends the signal that it’s okay to mount bigger and bigger attacks, talking with dictators shows them that they can use the West’s predisposition towards diplomacy to tie its arms.

There is a very thorny question here (and one to which I don’t have a good answer): it’s well known that NK is caving in on itself, and that without outside supply lines of food and oil, the whole place would collapse. The simplest way to get Kim Jong to his knees is to cut off those supply lines. Unfortunately, along with Kim Jong’s empire, a good number of his citizens will also perish. Kim Jong, of course, doesn’t care how many of citizens die, and will let them starve before he surrenders.

Just another communist utopia where the people are free from the opporession of Walmart.

(Sorry I couldn’t resist.)

I’m don’t pretend to know how to resolve the North Korean nuclear situation, but I do question one tactic the current administration is taking: Instead of the USA taking the primary leadership role in negotiations with NK, we have slowly withdrawn, leaving a power vacuum into which Beijing has conveniently taken over. If NK falls, it will fall right into China’s hands. If NK capitulates on its nuclear threat, the international community (in particular South Korea and Japan) will credit China with making it happen, not the US. Of course, if violence breaks out, not only will the US feel a good deal of the impact of it, but we will be held responsible for mismanaging and/or ignoring the impending crisis.

Our current policy of appearing to be tough by not negotiating might fool the American people into thinking that we are being conscientious and effective… and it might save the Bush administration from potential short-term embarassments in the Korean sphere… but it doesn’t hold any weight in the region, where China has increasingly picked up the slack we have dropped.

-Cf

President Bush should have forgotten about iraq and went into north korea instead. I mean, these guys are shoving evidence in our faces. The World is in agreement on the nuclear ambitions of N.Korea. And we know that N.korea was a customer on the nuclear black market. Bush most likely could have gotten far more support from the UN on this. The way i see it, kim jong is going to string us along with vague promises of negotiation, until he has a few nukes. Then he’ll test one to show the world that N.korea is now a nuclear power. And then of course, we wont be able to confront N.korea without causing a nuclear exchange. Looks like our quest for oil has blinded us to the real threat to national security.

Vivek, what else is Bush using, pray tell? Are we gearing up for the Second Korean war? No.

So what is Bush doing? Talking tough, while really doing nothing at all. If I can give the Reagan Administration any credit, it’s that when Gorby gave him the leverage, Reagan (or his appropriate delegates) pulled. If I can give Bush’s father any credit, it’s that he did the same. Now Bush has the same opportunity, but he’s not taking it. Why? Because the North Koreans are evil! And we don’t negotiate with Evil. Not unless it helps us justify a pre-emptive war to our own countrymen (Try Tadzhikistan).

Again he underestimates the power of diplomacy to put opponents in uncomfortable positions. He throws away his tools as if he always afford their loss. Perhaps in some parts of life, that’s courageous, but as a president’s policy, it’s negligent.

We tried diplomacy with N. Korea, in the 90’s. they agreed to halt their weapons program, then turned around and continued working on it anyway. what makes me mad is that we were willing to give turkey $20 billion to allow us to stage troops there to invade Iraq. I think if we offered N. Korea that money, in exchange for monitoring their weapons program, i think maybe they would take it. Or not. You have to realize what kind of leverage Kim Jong gains by acquiring nukes.

Stephen, the answer to your question is in what Bush is not doing. He is no longer propping up the regime with oil and food. This represents a dramatic improvement in policy.

The World is in agreement on the nuclear ambitions of N.Korea. And we know that N.korea was a customer on the nuclear black market. Bush most likely could have gotten far more support from the UN on this.

Who said they have nuclear weapons? Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons. They sure wanted us to think did or would. They’re probably lying. You should be happy Bush is finally seeing it your way. War is bad. No blood for oil. Give peace a chance. Violence only begets violence.

Again he underestimates the power of diplomacy to put opponents in uncomfortable positions.

Yeah, we all see how well diplomacy works with communist dictators. Well, at least with democratic Presidents.

But seriously folks, can’t we all just get along?

If I were President (serving my second term)… right after I had sufficient civilian Iraqi control of Iraq, I’d bring the troops back home for a well deserved rest, then start in on old ‘Ill Kim’. Isolate him. Blockade them. Start training and sending in North and South Koreans as a fifth column. Broadcast Air America into North Korea promising freedom and liberation.

And since France won’t have any bribes to hide they’ll probably even go along with a ‘multilateral’ invasion. Hee hee.

Sebastian, Bush cannot sit still. He cannot starve out the North Koreans. The leaders have proven rather indifferent to the plight of their people. It strikes me as rather strange that you suggest that what did not work in your view for Iraq, containment, will work for North Korea.

Of course, war and diplomacy may do no Good either. North Korea may have to collapse on its own. May. If anything can been done to hasten the fall of the totalitarian government, it would be a terrible thing to pass up the opportunity.

Frankly, I’m against war and I hate it, however as far as NK is concerned, they’re probably a much bigger threat to the world than Iraq was.
I mean all Kim does is make belligerent statements and threaten to use his nuclear weapons, and I think he probably does have them, cause I don’t think AQ khan was caught for nothing.
If ever pre-emptive war was justified( which it isnt 99% of the time), it’s in the case of NK. Also, in the case of Saddam, despite all the terrible things he did, he brought Iraq to a stable, developing economy,he was also comparatively liberal as compared to the hardline Shia’s who are right now framing the constitution.
(They’ll probably impose Sharia law, and before we know it, women will be stoned to death in converted football stadiums)
However, this is not the case in Nk, which is terrible shape. I almost wish that they had some oil down there, unfortunately, they only have an unstable and dangerous leadership and possibly weapons of very massive destruction. Oh well, I guess we’ll just have to hope that Halliburton desides to start marketing rice.