So Bushy got his UN resolution against N. Korea

[techs]

With China already saying they won't perform cargo inspections of goods headed towards N. Korea the embargo is as good as dead.
While Condi is going to go to press China to agree I think the best she will get is China saying they will do it, but then they won't actually do it.
So basically Bushes plan so far does NOTHING.

I would have liked to see a speech along the lines of Kennedys speech:
It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

Except it should say that any terrorist attack using nuclear weapons shall be assumed to be an attack by N. Korea and we will retailiate against them.


The Bush response has been woeful. Basically it does nothing.

 

[bobdelt]

"Except it should say that any terrorist attack using nuclear weapons shall be assumed to be an attack by N. Korea and we will retailiate against them."

So now any terrorist attack using nukes is n. koreas?

Hasnt the US assumed enough already?

 

[ZeGermans]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
"Except it should say that any terrorist attack using nuclear weapons shall be assumed to be an attack by N. Korea and we will retailiate against them."

So now any terrorist attack using nukes is n. koreas?

Hasnt the US assumed enough already?

Given that they're the only country without pro-US leadership and are pretty much rulled by a nutjob, it's reasonable to think that they'd give a nuke to a terrorist. That being said, saying we'll go after them if they do that is a way of hopefully insuring that they DON'T do that.

 

[ProfJohn]

Techs, since you are such an expert what should Bush do? And how shall he go about getting your plan into place?

 

[EagleKeeper]

IF such an embargo is in place; then why not have the US & Un allies increase the interdiction that you feel China will not do.

Small patrol boats backed up with a few fast warships should be able to hamper the shipping.

There are multiple countries along the Pacific rim that can sent a couple of patrol boats each. Put in place a small destroyer force to support them and see what happens.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: techs
With China already saying they won't perform cargo inspections of goods headed towards N. Korea

Oh Really?

China had begun to inspect cargo at the border with North Korea for weapons though it was unclear how much of an impact that would have on the negligible arms trade between the two countries.

Television pictures showed Chinese custom agents inspecting trucks heading across the border.

"The Chinese now are beginning to stop trucks at the 800-mile border and inspect all of them," Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns told CNN.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, since you are such an expert what should Bush do? And how shall he go about getting your plan into place?

It's not Techs' job to provide national security; it is the president's.

 

[TravisT]

Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

hehe, isn't this what lost the election for the Democrats in 2004? An no, simply disagreeing isn't a plan... to have a plan, you have to be trying to achieve an end to something.

I will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if they have a sensible plan that I agree with for Iraq. But I think simply b*tching to be b*tching gets this country no where. Yes, you may have a right to do it. But you are absolutely useless if that is all you have to offer.

 

[Lemon law]

Basically the President has no options other than go along with the UN santions--water down as they are---China and Russia with a common border have all the aces in the deck. GWB's N. Korea policy---different from the previous five President preceding him has now failed big time---if GWB wants more options---he can talk to N. Korea directly---and thats a part of his failed strategy he still swears to not change.---unless anyone is crazy enough to think the US can use military options?---the chance is zero that Russia or China would let that happen.

Other than searching N. Korean ships that come into US ports---searching them in international waters is basically an act of war---but a few other nations may join us in searching them
in home waters.

All this has done is forced N. Korea into retaining its nuclear assets and more under the thumbs of China and Russia.---and another door slams on any hopes of N. Korea ever joining the
a modern world.

Somehow I don't feel safer yet.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

hehe, isn't this what lost the election for the Democrats in 2004? An no, simply disagreeing isn't a plan... to have a plan, you have to be trying to achieve an end to something.

I will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if they have a sensible plan that I agree with for Iraq. But I think simply b*tching to be b*tching gets this country no where. Yes, you may have a right to do it. But you are absolutely useless if that is all you have to offer.

No, what lost the elections in 2004 was the image that Democrats are "cut and run" or "confused" as to a plan. They have plans, but nobody wants to look at this because they preface those plans with "we are heading in the wrong direction", at which time all Republicans shut down because the democrats *dared* to say that their President was wrong! *GASP!*.

How would I have handled NK? I wouldn't have gotten into Iraq, which allowed them to think we were (and quite correctly) distracted. It also focused our diplomatic powers on Iraq instead of worldwide.

Now? I think we should fire Bolton, fire Rice, put KJI's feet to the fire and then work the public.

However, saying that I can't, or shouldn't, complain if I don't have a plan is plain stupid. I don't have to have a plan, we have elected officials to do that. If their plan sucks, it's my right and duty to make them think of a better and different plan, or vote them out as soon as possible.

 

[Pens1566]

If the Chinese say they will do it and then fail to follow through, we play hardball and implement REAL fair trade with them. See how they like it then.

 

[Lemon law]

One of these days the US will play hardball with China---and China will simply call in the debts the US owes it---and see how the US like it then.

By then the Chinese won't need us as a place to dump its goods and build its industrial base.

 

[TravisT]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

hehe, isn't this what lost the election for the Democrats in 2004? An no, simply disagreeing isn't a plan... to have a plan, you have to be trying to achieve an end to something.

I will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if they have a sensible plan that I agree with for Iraq. But I think simply b*tching to be b*tching gets this country no where. Yes, you may have a right to do it. But you are absolutely useless if that is all you have to offer.

No, what lost the elections in 2004 was the image that Democrats are "cut and run" or "confused" as to a plan. They have plans, but nobody wants to look at this because they preface those plans with "we are heading in the wrong direction", at which time all Republicans shut down because the democrats *dared* to say that their President was wrong! *GASP!*.

How would I have handled NK? I wouldn't have gotten into Iraq, which allowed them to think we were (and quite correctly) distracted. It also focused our diplomatic powers on Iraq instead of worldwide.

Now? I think we should fire Bolton, fire Rice, put KJI's feet to the fire and then work the public.

However, saying that I can't, or shouldn't, complain if I don't have a plan is plain stupid. I don't have to have a plan, we have elected officials to do that. If their plan sucks, it's my right and duty to make them think of a better and different plan, or vote them out as soon as possible.

We will have to agree to disagree on your b*tching. But, I also think it's easy to say "I wouldn't have went to Iraq". In fact, i'm inclined to say that the vast majority, including Republicans, would say that they wouldn't knowing now what we didn't when we went in. However, this isn't a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" game, whats done is done.

Let me ask you something a little different, and i'm not trying to be snide here. I'm actually surprised that the Democrats want more action here. Our foreign policy hasn't exactly been the friendliest. I know the Democrats have been holaring for quite sometime to rebuild some of the relationships we've lost in the last 6 years. I feel like i'm almost taking what I would consider to be the Democratic stance here. I think Bush needs to work with China and Russia, despite how piss-poor their attempt is to get this resolved. Is this probably the surest way of solving the situation? No. The only sure way you can resolve a situation is to resolve it yourself. But in that case, we will be stepping on a lot of toes in the process, and only pushing potential alliances even further away. All this said, I would be surprised if NK was willing to resolve this diplomatically. If they do, it won't be because America is the only country putting their foot down. And when or if we cross the line that other countries aren't willing to make, we have no one to back us up.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: bobdelt
"Except it should say that any terrorist attack using nuclear weapons shall be assumed to be an attack by N. Korea and we will retailiate against them."

So now any terrorist attack using nukes is n. koreas?

Hasnt the US assumed enough already?

Given that they're the only country without pro-US leadership and are pretty much rulled by a nutjob, it's reasonable to think that they'd give a nuke to a terrorist. That being said, saying we'll go after them if they do that is a way of hopefully insuring that they DON'T do that.

So unless I mis-understand your post, you're saying either Russia doesn't have nukes, or it has pro-US leadership?

I can't agree with that. There has long been a fear that terrorists would be able to get a nuke form the former USSR/Russia.

The action Tech suggests (Kennedy like warning) and you support allows for a Machivelian scenario:

Russian intel agents, whether rogue or not, covertly supply nuke material to muslim terorists. Their subsequent nuke attack results in USA nuking N.K. which draws in China. USA, China and NK (if still standing) enter into conflict. Russia profits big time.

Or,

USA backs down, embolding terrorists against USA. Russia still profits.

Also, if NK's follows through on its previous statements they will consider such a speech an "act of war". I believe our allies in the region (e.g., SK, Japan, Tiawan) would be strongly opposed to such a speech/plan of action.

I think it's far too aggressive a plan, and otherwise unwise.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
All this has done is forced N. Korea into retaining its nuclear assets and more under the thumbs of China and Russia.

---and another door slams on any hopes of N. Korea ever joining the a modern world.

Somehow I don't feel safer yet.

Explain your definition of NK "joining" the Modern World.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's not Techs' job to provide national security; it is the president's.

Techs chose to criticize the President's foreign policy decision with regards to North Korea, but failed to make a compelling argument as to what is wrong with our current policy...nor did he offer an alternative solution beyond modeling a speech by Kennedy, which essentially accomplishes nothing.

Honestly, North Korea is one of the few foreign policy issues that Bush has handled well...resolve through the UN with the backing of the world community, and engage China, who has the most influence over North Korea.

You guys basically bitched about Bush not leveraging all diplomatic options in dealing with Iraq and the WOT...now you are criticizing him for following a slow but hopefully beneficial diplomatic approach to mitigating North Korea???

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

hehe, isn't this what lost the election for the Democrats in 2004? An no, simply disagreeing isn't a plan... to have a plan, you have to be trying to achieve an end to something.

I will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if they have a sensible plan that I agree with for Iraq. But I think simply b*tching to be b*tching gets this country no where. Yes, you may have a right to do it. But you are absolutely useless if that is all you have to offer.

No, what lost the elections in 2004 was the image that Democrats are "cut and run" or "confused" as to a plan. They have plans, but nobody wants to look at this because they preface those plans with "we are heading in the wrong direction", at which time all Republicans shut down because the democrats *dared* to say that their President was wrong! *GASP!*.

How would I have handled NK? I wouldn't have gotten into Iraq, which allowed them to think we were (and quite correctly) distracted. It also focused our diplomatic powers on Iraq instead of worldwide.

Now? I think we should fire Bolton, fire Rice, put KJI's feet to the fire and then work the public.

However, saying that I can't, or shouldn't, complain if I don't have a plan is plain stupid. I don't have to have a plan, we have elected officials to do that. If their plan sucks, it's my right and duty to make them think of a better and different plan, or vote them out as soon as possible.

We will have to agree to disagree on your b*tching. But, I also think it's easy to say "I wouldn't have went to Iraq". In fact, i'm inclined to say that the vast majority, including Republicans, would say that they wouldn't knowing now what we didn't when we went in. However, this isn't a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" game, whats done is done.

It's not a "should of, could of" situation. Many people knew it was a bad idea from the start. In fact we had many millions of people a lot of whom went out on the streets and protested who also thought it was a bad idea.The fact is republicans and Bush did not want to listen because these people refuse to take sound advice or to even admit to having a bad idea ( tv press interview back in around 2002-03 ) when someone from another view point is handing it to them.

I and others prior to Iraq posted many times over and over again how this war in Iraq would lead us to a dead end and to many problems. As I said before it is not a "should of, could of" situation. If you must give it a label then label it as a "I told you so" situation because many people told the republicans and Bush that Iraq was a very bad course of action to take.


P.S. It's not "bitching" when someone is telling you the truth and trying to prevent you from making a grave mistake. Only childern call it bitching when they don't want to take sound advice and think they know it all.

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Honestly, North Korea is one of the few foreign policy issues that Bush has handled well...resolve through the UN with the backing of the world community, and engage China, who has the most influence over North Korea.

You guys basically bitched about Bush not leveraging all diplomatic options in dealing with Iraq and the WOT...now you are criticizing him for following a slow but hopefully beneficial diplomatic approach to mitigating North Korea???

QFT.

I've heard numeroud interviews with administration officials saying that they would be willing to speak 1 on 1 with NK within the context of the six party talks . I think it would be extremely misguided to give NK the 1 on 1's we've given in the past. It would put us at a huge negotiating disadvantage. They've proven that they don't work. Every time we've spoken with them and come to an "agreement" they've renegged on their end. By talking 1 on 1 with the US, they've been able to do whatever they want and then blame it on us. But if they agree to a plan of action within the 6 party talks and back out, they now can no longer blame the US, and would have to deal with China / Russia / SK / Japan. Which is exactly why they don't want to rejoin them.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, since you are such an expert what should Bush do? And how shall he go about getting your plan into place?

It's not Techs' job to provide national security; it is the president's.

My new response on every thread involving a Democrat will be to bitch about everything they say and do so without offering any kind of solution or anything productive.

And then when called to the floor about my "useless bitching" I will just cut and paste the above response inserting my name instead of Tech's. That should really elevate the level of debate around here.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TravisT
Don't criticize the plan unless you feel you have something better. North Korea is a threat, no one denies that. I think Bush is doing the smart thing by trying to put a little accountability on some other countries to fight this thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do that" *IS* a plan. Furthermore, it is our right and duty to criticize even if we don't personally have a different plan. It is the government's job to come up with a different one.

hehe, isn't this what lost the election for the Democrats in 2004? An no, simply disagreeing isn't a plan... to have a plan, you have to be trying to achieve an end to something.

I will vote for a Democrat in 2008 if they have a sensible plan that I agree with for Iraq. But I think simply b*tching to be b*tching gets this country no where. Yes, you may have a right to do it. But you are absolutely useless if that is all you have to offer.

Actually, what YOU guys are doing was part of the problem with the Dems in 2004. You essentially admit that President Bush and the Republicans are crap (I don't see anyone defending his brilliant plan), but your argument in their favor is "at least they are better than the Dems". It's "Anyone but Bush" all over again, only it works even less well if you are the party in power.

Here's a hint on problem solving, having the only plan does not make it a good plan. Bad plans are bad plans, and if it's the only one out there, that means you should probably rethink it, not just go ahead because you're too lazy/stupid to come up with anything better. This is essentially the problem with the Bush approach to everything, a stupid plan now is better than a good plan tomorrow.

And, while it may not apply here, doing nothing is OFTEN the best plan. You Republicans love your black and white issues, but quite often the smartest thing to do is NOT do the stupid ass thing you thought of. Asking "well what would you replace Bush's plan with" is similar to, when you've finally put out the fire burning your house, asking what you might replace it with.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, since you are such an expert what should Bush do? And how shall he go about getting your plan into place?

It's not Techs' job to provide national security; it is the president's.

My new response on every thread involving a Democrat will be to bitch about everything they say and do so without offering any kind of solution or anything productive.

And then when called to the floor about my "useless bitching" I will just cut and paste the above response inserting my name instead of Tech's. That should really elevate the level of debate around here.

YOU are the one driving the debate into the floor. Well, not you so much as you and the rest of your righty buddies. Instead of being able to have a reasonable discussion about the validity of ANY solution to any problem, we get this frat-boy bully nonsense about "where's your solution?". I'm not sure what kind of debate we're having here, but ideas don't suddenly become better because they are the only solution presented at the time. A lot of the time it's better to simply reject a bad idea, then worry about coming up with a better one. The alternative is doing things like invading Iraq, which was a terrible idea, but it was the first thing that popped into Bush's mind as what to do next in the war on terrorism...so clearly it must have been just a FANTASTIC idea, right?

For what it's worth, I actually like the idea of dealing with North Korea by putting pressure on China. China is emerging as a real world power, it's time they stopped acting like some two-bit dictatorship and actually started pulling their weight in the international community. But your guys style of "debate" is quite possibly the most annoying thing about P&N, and unfortunately overshadowed any chance at having a real discussion on the topic.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, what lost the elections in 2004 was the image that Democrats are "cut and run" or "confused" as to a plan. They have plans, but nobody wants to look at this because they preface those plans with "we are heading in the wrong direction", at which time all Republicans shut down because the democrats *dared* to say that their President was wrong! *GASP!*.

How would I have handled NK? I wouldn't have gotten into Iraq, which allowed them to think we were (and quite correctly) distracted. It also focused our diplomatic powers on Iraq instead of worldwide.

Now? I think we should fire Bolton, fire Rice, put KJI's feet to the fire and then work the public.

However, saying that I can't, or shouldn't, complain if I don't have a plan is plain stupid. I don't have to have a plan, we have elected officials to do that. If their plan sucks, it's my right and duty to make them think of a better and different plan, or vote them out as soon as possible.

You seem to forget the fact that North Korea has been on a march towards Nuclear weapons since at least the 1990's. Long before Bush was elected and long before Iraq was distracting anyone.

To state that had we not invaded Iraq we would not be sitting here today after a NK nuke test is naive at best. Name one action that Bush could have taken in the last six years that would have 1. made a difference and 2. China would have went along with.

"Now? I think we should fire Bolton, fire Rice, put KJI's feet to the fire and then work the public. "
Yes, good idea. Let's put Madeleine Albright back in charge as Secretary of State so she can go to NK and drink another toast to lil Kim and perhaps bring him another Michael Jordan signed basket ball, obviously that plan worked so well. :roll:

How can you say we should fire Bolton and Rice and THEN hold Kim's feet to the fire when these are the poeple who have been holding his feet to the fire for the past six years. Do you honestly think Bush could have gotten any sanctions pass the UN before this test? No, we are lucky if China plays along AFTER this test, they would have never taken any action before hand.

Complain all you want about Bush's plan and how it is not working. However, remember that we tried to liberal way under Clinton. Held direct talks, sent the Secretary of State, signed agreements, sent NK food and aid and in the end all we got was NK cheating behind our back for 6+ years. Now maybe Bush's plan hasn't stopped NK from creating Nukes, but at least we are no longer sending them billions of dollars worth of aid. Aid which allowed NK to focus on their nuke programs instead of trying to feed their people, since we were feeding them.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Techs, since you are such an expert what should Bush do? And how shall he go about getting your plan into place?

*Crickets*

We've got a bunch of armchair quarterbacks around here spouting off, yet, curiously, none of them ever propose how to do it. They just bitch and moan about Bush like usual.

And none of them want to talk about Clinton's 1994 "Framework" which (IMHO) has put us where we are now with regards to NK and nuclear proliferation.