Democrats and North Korea

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: maluckey

1EZduzit

So because NK cheated on former presidents, Bush and Co. should give them more support??

Talking with them is giving them support??

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Talking with them is giving them support??

Google "1994 Clinton Framework North Korea", read up, and learn.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Talking with them is giving them support??

Google "1994 Clinton Framework North Korea", read up, and learn.

I don't think your seeing the point I'm trying to make.

The point I'm trying to make is that Bush messed up by not talking to them. By not talking to them he left the door open for NK to make a plausible claim that they were afraid we were going to attack them (look at what we did to Iraq) so they had to develop nukes to defend themselves.

Most of the world hates us enough to readily accept that story, but if we had been talking to NK when they tested their nuke, then we could have made the case that they were just lying scum not to be ever trusted again. The result would be the same, but the world perception would be totally different.

I swear to God that I think that dumb monkey running this country must be purposefully trying to trash our good name.

 

[maluckey]

1EZduzit

Let me see if I am hearing you correctly...

you are saying that Bush refused to deal with NK as an "equal" and give him standing in the world, and it is because of this that NK felt the need to develop a nuclear weapon?

I might buy this if the former presidency had been successful in the least at what you propose Bush should have done. Clinton talked and talked and got exactly nothing. NK had already decided to make a nuclear weapon back then, and no amount of talking would have changed anything. Kim is afraid of the world, and this is his security blanket.

 

[Rainsford]

Number of nuclear weapons detonated by North Korea while Clinton was President: 0

Number of nuclear weapons detonated by North Korea while Bush was President: At least 1...

This isn't rocket science, folks. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 was a little sketchy, but blaming Clinton for North Korea is downright stupid. He hasn't been President for 6 years, 6 years during which Bush has totally failed to do anything to prevent what's happened with North Korea. I know the idea of solving ANY problem with something other than violence is a foreign concept to conservatives, but Clinton actually was fairly successful with the diplomatic approach...Bush should have given it a try. Instead, we got silly posturing about the "axis of evil" and nothing else for 6 years...who's surprised that this didn't work very well?

Like I said, I understand the right blaming Clinton for 9/11 (I disagree, but at least they can make a semi-reasonable case), but this thing with North Korea is a perfect example of why the Republicans shouldn't be running a hardware store, much less the country...they can't take responsibility for ANYTHING. A reasonable person can't really argue that Bush took positive steps with North Korea (or ANY steps for that matter), and while you may disagree with Clinton's approach, at least he tried something and it even seemed to be working. And in any case, Clinton's efforts were 6 years ago, at what point did 6 years become unimportant when dealing with problems like North Korea?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey
1EZduzit

Let me see if I am hearing you correctly...

you are saying that Bush refused to deal with NK as an "equal" and give him standing in the world, and it is because of this that NK felt the need to develop a nuclear weapon?

I might buy this if the former presidency had been successful in the least at what you propose Bush should have done. Clinton talked and talked and got exactly nothing. NK had already decided to make a nuclear weapon back then, and no amount of talking would have changed anything. Kim is afraid of the world, and this is his security blanket.

I won't argue that Kim is the world's most rational guy, but don't you think that maybe all our posturing and threats directed towards his country had a little something to do with it? I admire your ability to go back in time and read the minds of North Korea's leadership, but come on now.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Number of nuclear weapons detonated by North Korea while Clinton was President: 0

Number of nuclear weapons detonated by North Korea while Bush was President: At least 1...

This isn't rocket science, folks. Blaming Clinton for 9/11 was a little sketchy, but blaming Clinton for North Korea is downright stupid. He hasn't been President for 6 years, 6 years during which Bush has totally failed to do anything to prevent what's happened with North Korea. I know the idea of solving ANY problem with something other than violence is a foreign concept to conservatives, but Clinton actually was fairly successful with the diplomatic approach...Bush should have given it a try. Instead, we got silly posturing about the "axis of evil" and nothing else for 6 years...who's surprised that this didn't work very well?

Like I said, I understand the right blaming Clinton for 9/11 (I disagree, but at least they can make a semi-reasonable case), but this thing with North Korea is a perfect example of why the Republicans shouldn't be running a hardware store, much less the country...they can't take responsibility for ANYTHING. A reasonable person can't really argue that Bush took positive steps with North Korea (or ANY steps for that matter), and while you may disagree with Clinton's approach, at least he tried something and it even seemed to be working. And in any case, Clinton's efforts were 6 years ago, at what point did 6 years become unimportant when dealing with problems like North Korea?

I don't condemn Clinton for agreeing to the AF. The problem is that a number of years later, when Kim Jong thinks he didn't get enough out of the first deal, the Uranium disclosure is made to US diplomats in order to conduct nuclear extortion round 2. Clearly this violates the objective of the AF which is to keep both Koreas non-nuclear.

All the rest of his posturing and even the nuke test has been for the end goal of getting us back to the bilateral table again, which even Bush isn't stupid enough to do. He ignored Kim until he stepped out of his boundries and had the Chinese slap him back to the six party talks. As far as bellicose statements go, Bush's Axis of Evil speech (while not productive or wise IMO) was nothing compared to the rhetoric that pours out of North Korea against the US on a regular basis.

 

[maluckey]

Furthermoe, the materials needed for the nuclear weapons Kim now has were NOT provided under the Bush administration. That is not in dispute. The NK were found to be not in compliance with the agreement as far back as while Clinton was in office. That is NOT in dispute.

What part of that is hard to understand. Perhaps insulting NK wasn't smart, but neither ws giving them material and time to develop nuclear weapons. Bi-lateral talks under Clinton failed. They would have failed under Bush as well.