Meanwhile...in North Korea...
Find a Conversation
Meanwhile...in North Korea...
| Sun, 05-23-2004 - 8:21am |
While we're on an apparent archeological dig in Iraq to find dusty old mortors, North Korea is making shiny new WMD and selling uranium to Iran and Libya. When are talks with North Korea going to be a priority? Ignoring them doesn't seem to be working.
Evidence Is Cited Linking Koreans to Libya Uranium
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/international/asia/23NUKE.html?hp
This is a long but interesting article about how the Bush "diplomacy" lead to N. Korea unlocking their fuel rods to make plutonium.
Rolling Blunder
How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

I enjoyed the "Rolling Blunder" article in Washington Monthly. Thanks for the link.
Rolling Blunder
How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Excellent article...thanks for posting the link!
I've felt all along that this administration has no skill in dealing with difficult & deadly international situations.
Oh yeah, I love this one. I can see it now, Usama Bin Laden, King JongII, and Suddam all sitting around while President Bush tries to tell them how they need to stop what they are doing and put the WMD down and cooperate. That ALWAYS works! *end sarcasm*
I would like to know who said that NK is being ignored? Who says that there isn't a covert plan right now for Iran and NK as well as Lybia and Syria? How in the world do know what you speak? When that plan arises and comes to the current timeline to be handled it will....I just don't understand what on earth Bush could have possibly done to quiet you people with harmonious POV's? It isn't going to happen because we know nothing about the "inside" and what goes on "behind the scenes" with very very confidential information. If Bush had started with NK would it have been just or ok with ya'll? I doubt it, I actually doubt anything he would have done would have been ok and right with a lot of people simply because it was done by George W. Bush
Indeed who does? You may BELIEVE there is a plan though you have no knowledge of an actual plan. So, are you deluding yourself? Practicing wishful thinking?
And why do you doubt it? Did you feel the unhappiness with Bush in the same level BEFORE he chose Iraq as his target? No. Was there any great opposition to Afghanistan? No. Bush had the full support of this nation until he shifted his policy to Iraq. He made a poor case for war and alienated constituents, friends and allies and turned out to be wrong on a lot of things.
On the other hand, we are positive that N. Korea has nuclear weapons, is having a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions, and has a leader that is slightly mad. So, those are valid reasons to approach N. Korea with our national security interest at the forefront. FACTS make the case.
Might is not always right, and in the case of Iraq I agree with hayasig. The lack of FACTS made a shady case for war and it has panned out that what we actually went to war on many assumptions, many of which have turned out to be false. This war may wind up being judged as a good thing 20 years from now but it could very well go the other way. Time will tell.
I find the Bush adminstration's foreign policy to have two speeds - high and off, with us or against us. I find it very disturbing that there are so few options presented in our foreign policy. It shows a lack of willingness, creativity, and responsibility. Bush could do better. That's all we're saying. That doesn't make Bush wrong on everything he's ever done, just as being right on say, tax cuts or education policy, doesn't make his Iraq policy any better.
Iraq has been handled badly, and at the sacrifice of all other foreign policy. Do you not agree that is a valid concern?
Glassy
(I never said I know everything, I actually said quite the opposite, so your point is with that comment what exactly?)
Indeed who does? You may BELIEVE there is a plan though you have no knowledge of an actual plan. So, are you deluding yourself? Practicing wishful thinking?
(Exactly my point, and you may BELIEVE there isn't as well as others but it doesn't make it true and therefore acting as you do know that Bush doesn't have a plan for those countries when mostly they are top secret plans until the time comes to surface that plan, you and I will not know, as it should be. You call it wishful thinking I call it faith and hope)
And why do you doubt it? Did you feel the unhappiness with Bush in the same level BEFORE he chose Iraq as his target? No. Was there any great opposition to Afghanistan? No. Bush had the full support of this nation until he shifted his policy to Iraq. He made a poor case for war and alienated constituents, friends and allies and turned out to be wrong on a lot of things.
(I doubt it because let's gt real here, Most people who hate Goerge Bush now hated him before 9/11 and before the war on Iraq, it's obvious in so many posts on this forum. No I did not feel the unhappiness for Bush before the war on Iraq nor do I feel it now, I do believe he has made some errors and wrong choices but all in all I believe in why he did what he did...BTW it wasn't just solely Bush who agreed with this war in the top level leadership crew...he had support obviously from many in his cabinet as well as those who felt Saddam was a threat to many and was supporting terrorism. AS for having full support of this nation before Iraq, I doubt it...but anyway every President comes to a point in time where they can not please us all and there are many very pleased and supportive and many who are not...that's the way the cookie crumbles doesn't it? I think he made too much of a case for war IMO...just because the WMD weren't turning up left and right doesn't make you or I any the wiser of what happened to them...does the country Syria ring a bell? You may feel he alienated friends but I looked at it as them alienating us. We lost 3,000 people in Sept of 2001 and Bush decided not to wait this time to do something "after the fact", he took control of the Taliban and weakened it in many ways and went for the next on the list who supported terrorism and ignored the UN to turnover his WMD...I wonder where they went in that time he procrastinated? What a fool he'd be to keep them around and give Bush instant gratification...He isn't stupid, insane and evil maybe, not stupid. AS for him being wrong on a lot of things...I guess we won't know will we? He didn't wait thsi time for WMD to be used on our country and his administration wasn't going to allow our country to go back "to sleep" ever again. No other leader besides Bush and Blair stepped up and said enough is enough and actually did something about it...talk is cheap, actions are powerful.)
On the other hand, we are positive that N. Korea has nuclear weapons, is having a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions, and has a leader that is slightly mad. So, those are valid reasons to approach N. Korea with our national security interest at the forefront. FACTS make the case.
(Wow, what you speak sounds frighteningly familiar in Iraq and with Saddam Hussien...who is to say that NK's WMD will not be hidden or sold or pushed into another country to save their a$$es when finding out they are going to be next or rather if they had any clue they'd be first. All those things you listed as justified reasons to go to NK are what Bush and clan had as facts to go to Iraq...would you like links to where it says so...there are quite a few.)
Might is not always right, and in the case of Iraq I agree with hayasig. The lack of FACTS made a shady case for war and it has panned out that what we actually went to war on many assumptions, many of which have turned out to be false. This war may wind up being judged as a good thing 20 years from now but it could very well go the other way. Time will tell.
(Well did you know Saddam had planned on assasinating President Clinton while in office but failed when there was a change of plans on Clinton's side? This man and his supporters don't condone terrorism, they support it and they support deaths to innocent people and using that to become powerful, along with WMD, again where all those are doesn't really make this war unjust...it makes it even scarier to know that he did have them....now they're just somewhere else. Bush put a damper on his plans to use those weapons IMO, now Syria is intensely involved and the truth may just come straight out and bite them all in the rear. I don't blindly support this administration or the President, I would have supported this offensive attack with Clinton who whoever else deemed in necessary. The reason? I agree in preventative. I could see it now...another terrorist attack this time with the WMD from Saddam and/or his terrorist support groups and everyone wondering once again why Bush hadn't stopped it. That will forever be the catch 22 he will find himself in no matter what.)
I find the Bush adminstration's foreign policy to have two speeds - high and off, with us or against us. I find it very disturbing that there are so few options presented in our foreign policy. It shows a lack of willingness, creativity, and responsibility. Bush could do better. That's all we're saying. That doesn't make Bush wrong on everything he's ever done, just as being right on say, tax cuts or education policy, doesn't make his Iraq policy any better.
(Sept 11th pushed him and his supporters in a corner. It was something no other President has had to deal with. I think he made the plans to prevent this from happening ever again and used his time in Presidency to make sure the begginning of the end of terrorism was going to be on his watch. Tell me something, should Bush have left well enough alone and concentrated soley on Afghanistan and all the while Saddam is calculating his next terrorist ploy, his next anti-American campaign? There is no doubt in my mind America would have encountered in the future another Sept 11th but far worse because this sleeping Giant over here as they say would have been only awake in Afghanistan. I think the planning on the war was not up to par and it had major flaws...but I believe that is the reality of it an to expect anything close to perfect for an outcome of war is just plain silly and unrealistic.)
Iraq has been handled badly, and at the sacrifice of all other foreign policy. Do you not agree that is a valid concern?
( I agree that it puts the US in an awkward position when not completely backing up the foreign policies made through the UN, which ist here to handle these issues and the their support although is needed to "look better" in the eyes of everyone else, it seemed they gave us no choice on the matter. I don't think Bush wanted another 9/11 or worse, not onhis watch, nothing, not this war or lack of foreign support, lack of public American support could be worse than that. Bottom LINE)