IMO, this is just N. Korea stalling like Saddam did for years and years, but if they return to the 6-way talks, then I'd say the Bush/Rice strategy is working well, and there may be hope for the UN just yet.
N. Korea apologizes for nuke, may return to 6-way talks
- Thread starter hellokeith
- Start date
IMO, this is just N. Korea stalling like Saddam did for years and years, but if they return to the 6-way talks, then I'd say the Bush/Rice strategy is working well, and there may be hope for the UN just yet.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,804
- 46,632
- 136
I'm guessing the Chinese envoys went to NK and bitchslapped Kim telling him to back off or else. The PRC may want Kim to be an annoyance to the US, but they certainly don't want him touching off a regional (possibly nuclear) war with their largest trade partner.
China put pressure on her redheaded stepchild. Bushy-Rice had little to do with this.
China does not want the economic apple cart being upset...just yet.
China does not want the economic apple cart being upset...just yet.
No, Chinese strategy working. A good rap to the knuckles by their enabler works wonders.
Bush/Rice:FAILURE.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Does anybody else get the vision from the movie "Team American:World Police" where Kim is singing "Im sworry, so sworry"?
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Hahaha, I would love to have seen the Chinese tell ole Kim off. I would have enjoyed watching whatever they said to him to make him do this.
The right wing doesn't realize that had a *democrat* president done what Bush did - responded to the nuclear test by North Korea with a statement that we were not considering a military response and were planning diplomacy to handle the situation - the right wing would be *all over* screaming how horrible the democrat was, weak, and they'd be saying that a republican would do a lot more in response, they'd be saying how democrats rely on ineffective diplomacy, how the democrats don't get that you can't 'trust' the North Korean leadership, how it was a huge mistake to say military options were not an option now. They'd be attacing, attacking, attacking the democrat.
But you don't see that for Bush. It's part of the double standard they have where they use one set of rules for democrats and another for 'their side'. This just proves to them how Bush isn't just a warmonger, he's a diplomat too; at most, you hear them saying they'd prefer he did more, but it's very gently said, not the sort of 'the US will be destroyed because of this idiot' type things you would hear were it a democrat.
This is one of those very rare issues where I at least partly can say something good about the Bush administration - while they've made many big mistakes on North Korea, their ability to say something like they did about not planning a nuclear response is surprising and encouraging. And it may pay off, as we're seeing - though the right wing dos not share the credit: while they have not screamed at Bush, they have hardly said a word praising his 'no military attacks' statement, either - they're still militaristic.
Let's compare: Carter and Clinton got North Korea slowed down on the nuclear track, the Plutomium locked under international seal where it remained until the Bush administration, at which point Bush broke the deal and North Korea then broke the seals, and made bombs. The agreement had not been completely followed, but the Plutonium had remained sealed until Bush's actions. The Bush administration threatens they had better not dare to launch missiles; they launch. Warns not to do the nuke, they do it.
Then the Bush administration says they will not attack North Korea, and North Korea tells the Chinese they regret the test and are willing to compromise.
It's interesting how the right so often demands violent actions in response to enemies by saying that they can't make it look like they're giving in to enemy demands - and yet, they also demand that we make all kinds of demands on the enemies which makes *them* refuse to they don't look weak. Are they that ignorant about diplomacy?
Rhetorical question.
But you don't see that for Bush. It's part of the double standard they have where they use one set of rules for democrats and another for 'their side'. This just proves to them how Bush isn't just a warmonger, he's a diplomat too; at most, you hear them saying they'd prefer he did more, but it's very gently said, not the sort of 'the US will be destroyed because of this idiot' type things you would hear were it a democrat.
This is one of those very rare issues where I at least partly can say something good about the Bush administration - while they've made many big mistakes on North Korea, their ability to say something like they did about not planning a nuclear response is surprising and encouraging. And it may pay off, as we're seeing - though the right wing dos not share the credit: while they have not screamed at Bush, they have hardly said a word praising his 'no military attacks' statement, either - they're still militaristic.
Let's compare: Carter and Clinton got North Korea slowed down on the nuclear track, the Plutomium locked under international seal where it remained until the Bush administration, at which point Bush broke the deal and North Korea then broke the seals, and made bombs. The agreement had not been completely followed, but the Plutonium had remained sealed until Bush's actions. The Bush administration threatens they had better not dare to launch missiles; they launch. Warns not to do the nuke, they do it.
Then the Bush administration says they will not attack North Korea, and North Korea tells the Chinese they regret the test and are willing to compromise.
It's interesting how the right so often demands violent actions in response to enemies by saying that they can't make it look like they're giving in to enemy demands - and yet, they also demand that we make all kinds of demands on the enemies which makes *them* refuse to they don't look weak. Are they that ignorant about diplomacy?
Rhetorical question.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,804
- 46,632
- 136
The Bush admin had previously assured NK that they had no intention of attacking. The stratigic situation over there rules it out to begin with. Kim was demanding a non-agression pact (among other things which were not included in the AF) which the US has always been unwilling to grant, so they let it slide to the US that they had a parallel uranium program in order to conduct nuclear extortion round 2. Since that little revalation basically revealed that we had been screwed with the AF the Bush admin correctly (IMO) told Kim to go suck it.
Predictably, NK became increasingly bellicose in the hopes of luring the US to bilateral talks where NK has the advantage. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to fall into that trap. NK kept ratcheting up the rhetoric and popped off a nuke in one last attempt to force the US to negotiate directly with them. This, it seems in light of this story, has ended in failure for NK as China is stepping in and telling them to back down and submit to the six-party talks.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk... Haven't you learned yet - this is P&N...
If things are going WELL, Bush had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. When things are going POORLY it's HIS FAULT - regardless of his involvement.
Maybe there should be a P&N faq for tidbits such as this...
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
I am not much of a GWB fan----but from what I have read, alot of this has to do with the US quietly moving behind the scenes and cutting off all of N. Korea's
international credit. Which is not to say that China has nothing to do with it either---but that cut off the credit step is finally getting to Kim Jong ll.
Hitting him hard where he lives--and giving him a healthy dose of reality therapy.
So credit where credit is due----GWB did a good job here.
international credit. Which is not to say that China has nothing to do with it either---but that cut off the credit step is finally getting to Kim Jong ll.
Hitting him hard where he lives--and giving him a healthy dose of reality therapy.
So credit where credit is due----GWB did a good job here.
So how does a President cut off all credit for a country in a world market?
Can he make OPEC pump more oil while he's at it?
Bush/Rice strategy? What is that: a trip to S Korea in which we failed to convince them to stop sending aid to the North, and another to China that was already putting the pressure on them? Going places and shaking hands with people in front of cameras, however good it is for the coming elections, does not amount to a foriegn policy "strategy".
Last year Rumsfeld sanctioned a Bank in Macao because of suspicion of financial crimes linked with North Korea so the bank wasn't allowed to trade with or in the US. The other banks understood the hint and nowadays it is nearly impossible to make international monetary transactions for North Korea, because every international bank needs the US market.
I would assume that closing off avenues of credit would be an insentive for NK to sell weapons for hard currency. The USSR showed how effective that can be back in the days when the Ruble was worthless on the world markets.
China is following a long term plan to become a super power. While NK can be a usefull tool in this plan, Kim often seems to be a loose cannon. I have no doubt that China just made it clear to him that they would be willing to write him off if he provokes a conflict at this time. Explained that while he is useful, he is not a necessity.
I have yet to see where the U.S. has done anything effective to change his course.
China is following a long term plan to become a super power. While NK can be a usefull tool in this plan, Kim often seems to be a loose cannon. I have no doubt that China just made it clear to him that they would be willing to write him off if he provokes a conflict at this time. Explained that while he is useful, he is not a necessity.
I have yet to see where the U.S. has done anything effective to change his course.
The US has been integral in driving the UN sanctions.
Libs criticized Bush for being "unilateral" with Iraq, and now they criticize him for being "multilateral" with North Korea.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter