President Attempting to APPEASE N. Korea

[smashp]

The hardline stance is slipping as it acomplished nothing. The threat of US military intervention in N. Korea isn't a threat with the Us military being spread too thinly in other Regions. N. korea knows this and is arogant as ever. President Bush, Who decided against a appeasment strategy in regards, now pursues a measure which is seen by many as appeasement. He is tring to resolve this issue by just showing some kind of result wheater it works or not, just in time for 2004. This is the same thing conservatives accuse Carter and clinton in doing.

 

[rickn]

Bushy is a lousy president. I didn't vote for him

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How so? Is it another worthless treaty that only binds our hands, and not theirs?(no)
I'd be interested to see exactly what you think Bush is doing, because from what I have seen, his stance has definately been different from that of Clinton and Carter.

CkG

 

[Orsorum]

We all know that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to armed coercion. No wonder Saddam was trying to obtain them in the past.

 

[digitalsm]

The world isnt ready to use force against NK, so threatening force without backing up is even worse than not threatening force. Threatening force would likely trigger a large scale war thats drawn out and costly in terms of money and lives. Even without the war in Iraq, the US wouldnt be willing to take an extremely hard line approach with NK. They have nuclear weapons, they have a large military. They have the capability of destroying two nations with ease.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: smashp
The hardline stance is slipping as it acomplished nothing. The threat of US military intervention in N. Korea isn't a threat with the Us military being spread too thinly in other Regions. N. korea knows this and is arogant as ever. President Bush, Who decided against a appeasment strategy in regards, now pursues a measure which is seen by many as appeasement. He is tring to resolve this issue by just showing some kind of result wheater it works or not, just in time for 2004. This is the same thing conservatives accuse Carter and clinton in doing.

And last I checked the stance before Bush was, "here have $6billion, you promise not to build nuclear weapons, right?"

 

[smashp]

Is it another worthless treaty that only binds our hands, and not theirs?(

As i remember, this administration doesnt like Many treaties except when the have to do with free trade( good buy jobs, Wave at them now).

A treaty is apeasement yet a written PROMISE of non-aggression isnT?

How so?


To me, a treaty and a Written promise are the same F@cking thing. We sign both.


Both are worthless pieces of paper.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp

Is it another worthless treaty that only binds our hands, and not theirs?(

As i remember, this administration doesnt like Many treaties except when the have to do with free trade( good buy jobs, Wave at them now).
A treaty is apeasement yet a written PROMISE of non-aggression isnT?
How so?
To me, a treaty and a Written promise are the same F@cking thing. We sign both.
Both are worthless pieces of paper.

Your info is where? What is your bias?

digitalsm got it right - the previous Admins APPEASED with $. Now exactly what do you think Bush is doing, and how is it similar to paying them off like we did previously?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The Gaurdian good enough for you smashp?

<snip>
President George Bush insisted yesterday that he had no plans to invade North Korea, and offered security guarantees in an attempt to kick-start talks to solve the country's nuclear weapons crisis. However, he ruled out offering Pyongyang one of its most often-stated demands, a non-aggression pact.
...
Mr Bush said yesterday: "I've said as plainly as I can that we have no intention of invading North Korea. What's important here is that the burden is on North Korea, not on America.
"North Korea must get rid of her nuclear ambitions. She must get rid of her weapons programmes, [/b]in a verifiable way[/b], I might add."
...
The president said he saw the summit, where he will meet the leaders from his negotiating partners, as "an opportunity to move the process forward". But he remained firm on one issue. "We will not have a treaty," Mr Bush said. "That's off the table."
</snip> -emphasis(bold) mine

Now again - how is this appeasement? How is this the same thing "conservatives accuse Carter and clinton in doing"?

CkG

 

[railer]

CAD, you need to be sophisticated enough to understand why people do the things they do. NK wants nukes so they can devote less $$ to their conventional military, so they can then feed their people, and use the money in other positive ways.
Do you realize to this day, we still give NK food aid? How many orders of magnitude more (not in lives wasted or destruction, but only in $$$) would a new Korean war cost vs the cost of economic aid? How many orders of magnitude worse is the situation now than it was a few years ago? People need to take their colective blinders off and stop throwing around words like "apeasement" as if that is an option far worse than going to war and leaving millions dead. Branding groups of people as 'evil' and threatening them with destruction is not going to accomplish very much, I'm afraid. It just gives the simpletons something to cheer about.

Bush is pandering to the right wing loons in that guardian article, obviously. He's said all along that he won't sign a non-aggression pact, then goes and does EXACTLY THAT, but doesn't CALL IT a non-aggression pact. Don't you see?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: railer
CAD, you need to be sophisticated enough to understand why people do the things they do. NK wants nukes so they can devote less $$ to their conventional military, so they can then feed their people, and use the money in other positive ways.
Do you realize to this day, we still give NK food aid? How many orders of magnitude more (not in lives wasted or destruction, but only in $$$) would a new Korean war cost vs the cost of economic aid? How many orders of magnitude worse is the situation now than it was a few years ago? People need to take their colective blinders off and stop throwing around words like "apeasement" as if that is an option far worse than going to war and leaving millions dead. Branding groups of people as 'evil' and threatening them with destruction is not going to accomplish very much, I'm afraid. It just gives the simpletons something to cheer about.

Bush is pandering to the right wing loons in that guardian article, obviously. He's said all along that he won't sign a non-aggression pact, then goes and does EXACTLY THAT, but doesn't CALL IT a non-aggression pact. Don't you see?

No, There will only be some sort of agreement once both sides agree on the terms which will bind them things instead of what has occured in the past. Our position on NK HAS changed from appeasement. We are looking for results this time - that is a BIG difference. There has been nothing "signed", only Bush's promise of non-aggression IF NK will agree to our demands of verifiable conditions which differs greatly from our past "deals" and "treaties" with NK. I think anyone who thinks others need to "be sophisitcated enough to understand" would themselves understand that these differences are more than just subtle wording changes.

Yes I realize that we give them aid - I wasn't just born yesterday But see what you fail to understand, is that unless you put a stop to the blackmail - it will never end. Cowering in fear and giving them money isn't a longterm investment I want to see the US embrace. Sure there are negatives on both side - but I think that simply giving into their demands doesn't help them or us in the long-term. Yes, I can use "appeasement" because that's exactly what it has been. What did NK have to do for Clinton's treaty? "promise" that they'd be good and not develope nukes? I guess we've seen how well that works

And no Bush isn't "pandering" - he's taking the same position he's had from the start. They will not just be able to squeeze more money out of us because they threaten nukes. He won't sign any pact or "treaty" without there being something in there that hold NK to it's promises...which is exactly what was missing from the previous "treaties". If he does sign a treaty or pact that doesn't hold NK to it's promises - I'll be one of the people shouting the loudest. NK, can't be allowed to blackmail us or the world anylonger, they've shown they won't keep their word and we can't and won't trust them any longer.
Also, maybe NK should be spending their money on their starving people or the unpaid military instead of building nukes

CkG

 

[Fencer128]

As i remember, this administration doesnt like Many treaties except when the have to do with free trade( good buy jobs, Wave at them now).

That sounds as if you're confusing "free trade" with "globalisation". Globalisation is a double edged sword, as the west is now experiencing. Still, you can't buy your clothes in gap and then complain about jobs going abroad. It's just the other side of the coin (and if you think the consequences of that are bad - look at people on the wrong end of unfair trade).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

As i remember, this administration doesnt like Many treaties except when the have to do with free trade( good buy jobs, Wave at them now).

That sounds as if you're confusing "free trade" with "globalisation". Globalisation is a double edged sword, as the west is now experiencing. Still, you can't buy your clothes in gap and then complain about jobs going abroad. It's just the other side of the coin (and if you think the consequences of that are bad - look at people on the wrong end of unfair trade).

Cheers,

Andy

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Mr Bush said yesterday: "I've said as plainly as I can that we have no intention of invading North Korea.

It's amazing what nuclear weapons can do, isn't it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Something I've wondered: Why don't we just sign a non-agression pact with NK? I mean everyone up and down the administration says we have no intention of invading. Why not just state it in writing, and build-in checks to make sure NK stays committed to non-nuke and/or non-prolif? It seems rather ridiculous to me that the U.S. would just consider a 50+-year standoff at the DMZ to be an acceptable solution.