N Korea defies US over nuclear crisis

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am largely refering to the Patriot act.

And once again, HOW is that anti-Democratic? After all, it was passed democratically by the Congress.

And keep in mind any information that he releases to Time Magazine might not nessecarily be his true opinions. It's alot easy to gain popularity by saying you are an idealist then by saying you are a realist in this country.

When did I say he released ANY information to Time Magazine. This was a commentary done.

From the past 2 years, I can unequivocally agree. Bush is an idealist. However, he is surrounded by realists. And he is willing to make the ends justify the means.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I bet we're doing a lot more than most think to protect the good countries. We have AEGIS ships between Japan/NK. Of course we might miss. Of course NK might miss. Again, same as above. but i would again bet on US hardware.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Well since we know the reactor in question, and aware of possible nuclear silos, couldn't we just bomb possible sites suspected of being related to NK's Nuclear program?

Perhaps we could take unilateral action. But I doubt that we would.

I think Bush will form a consensus on what to do with Chine, Russia, SK and Japan and take the issue to the UN.

I predict stiff sanctions on an already poor NK. However, I could be wrong. The UN may authorize force.

I note with interest the outgoing SK president's statement that SK would never allow NK to obtain nuclear weapons. Now, what does that mean?

[SlowwHand]

So now we care what China and Russia think? Why ?

[Sava]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV


what US aggression?! who are we beating up right now. The UN voted 15 to zip against iraq. are you saying the US really is the UN?? Are all the UN members really puppets for the US?? Come on. Everyone has a say about what's going on.

So what's this US aggression???

What does a UN vote to hold weapons inspections have to do with North Korea?

Anyways, the US is going to war regardless of what the UN says/does. Florida just had the largest recall of national guard and reserve troops since WW2. The US is refusing to give North Korea a non-agression pact and then rips them in the media when they start preparing for war... a defensive war against an invading US.

[Shi Huangdi]

" When did I say he released ANY information to Time Magazine. This was a commentary done."

Ok, I went and read the piece. He makes some interesting points, but I think he goes too much on Bush's decleration. Realism has never been a popular doctrine among the American people, so it makes sense for Bush to try to give the impression that he is an idealist acting in a Wilsonian manner, even if he intends to take the advice of his realist advisors.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it makes sense for Bush to try to give the impression that he is an idealist acting in a Wilsonian manner, even if he intends to take the advice of his realist advisors.

I think you overplay Bush's political agenda, and think that it is all a sleight-of-hand. He actually BELIEVES in the idealist principles. He isn't a realist by any measure of the word. Not in his actions or words. He actually does believe the US is hear to make the world a more democratic place.

He may take the advice of his realist advisiors, but how often does he really follow it? Idealism is being willing to piss off people to get your ideals through. Wilson was massively hated because of his idealism, and Bush is similar disliked.

[Saint Marcus]

Can't we just give all nations in the world a few nukes, and be done with this ever lasting debate?

[Ned]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So now we care what China and Russia think? Why ?

Reasons:

We need their votes at the UN.

We are on the same side on the war against terror.

NK is in their respective "sphere's of influence." We cannot act without their consent and cooperation.

Any sanctions program will need their support.

Any military action would be more likely to succeed if the Chinese and/or Russians helped. We certainly do not want a repeat of the Korean War.

This is just the short list.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Can't we just give all nations in the world a few nukes, and be done with this ever lasting debate?

Interesting way of seeing it solved. That opens up questions similar to like right to bear arms but instead of guns its nukes and instead of individual people its the government

btw check this article out..
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapc...dmz/index.html
They make it sound as if this is the first time nks have done this, and as if its only the nk thats snooping around with firepower.... :rollseye: eh, politics.

[DinoDoc]

I wonder if anyone realizes that the comparison with Wilson isn't particularly flattering.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wonder if anyone realizes that the comparison with Wilson isn't particularly flattering.

I do, but I doubt anyone would have listened to me if I said anything .

[DinoDoc]

Now before we get into a debate on realism v. idealism, I really would like someone to answer my question about how one goes about establishing a good faith basis for negotiation with NK given the fruit such actions have gotten us in the past.

[Sava]

One could make the same argument for the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Now before we get into a debate on realism v. idealism, I really would like someone to answer my question about how one goes about establishing a good faith basis for negotiation with NK given the fruit such actions have gotten us in the past.

I don't think there will be any negotiations this time. There will be coercion.

The real negotiation is going on right now with China.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder if anyone realizes that the comparison with Wilson isn't particularly flattering.

The point was Bush isn't doing this because he's conniving and wants to bully people, but he thinks he is supposed to do this for good.

[Graag]

Imran:

And once again, HOW is that anti-Democratic? After all, it was passed democratically by the Congress.

Indeed but would not you call the indefinate detention without trial of anyone at any time fitting with the US' great democratic tradition? Remember the bill of rights? The PATRIOT act was Bush wiping his ass with it.

The point was Bush isn't doing this because he's conniving and wants to bully people, but he thinks he is supposed to do this for good.

Does it really matter what his motives are if his actions are wrong?

[edited for typo]

[GePap]

Dino:

Depend how much good faith one wants: Lets take the '94 agreement. In 1994, we were on the verge of war, since the DPRK had, at that point, enough material for several bombs in just a few months. We negotiated. The reactor was shut down, the fuel rods put away and under monitoring. War was avoided, as was the immidiate nuclear threat. Now, come Late september, early october, the White house confronts N.Korea over a much smaller Uranium processing -plant that might produce enough material for a bomb in a year or so. What do we do? We demand they stop, offer nothing, state the last dela is dead, and then? The N.Korea call our bluff, and they are now much closer to many more nukes than they were before we called them out. What was gained? Are we better of with a hard line stance than we were before? I don't think so. N.KOrea is a deperate state, with only a few assets, their ability to make trouble being the main one. Now, people may want to say: "hey, we want an honest partner" but we won't get that from N.Korea. What we will get is a state that is willing to hagle. Will it be a good deal? Well, it will be far cheaper than a war and the aftermath, now won't it?

So no, I don't think N.Korea is a very trustworthy actor, but they are willing to be bought a few years at a time, and right now, the US really can't , politically or economically, afford a war in North East Asia.

Ned:

So what's the problem with negotiating under cohersion? we demand it of other all the time. Plus DPRK is very independent of China; China has little leverage on the situation, plus they don't want a war: foreign capital would flee china, and a flood of Korea refugees would stream in. Negotiations have to be with Pyongyang: that or we start preparing for war.

Imran:

Bush is no Wilsonian. His behavior towards the Cnetral asian dictatorships, Musharraf, Saudi Arabia, so forth and so on show that he does not give a damn about democracy. I don't see calls for democracy in Myanmar, or his giving a damn about problems in Africa, and countless other issues (Would a wilsonian support the Israeli occupation, Imran?). Again, read what people like Perle believe. They are neo-conservative Manicheans, the bearers of light against a world of evil (and I would add Imran that in the view of much of the admin, if not Bush and ****, Arabs and muslims are part of that "evil", specially between Israel and the rest of the ME). War with Iraq was predetermined, but war with N.Korea is just a bit more than anyone wants to chew right now. If the White House remains silent, its because they are at a loss. Rummy may say the military can handle it (and he is probably right, sicne S.Korea will provide the bulk of land forces in such a war) but it would be politically terrible. If a war were to start in the Korean penninsula before we attacked Iraq, then support for such a second war, a key policy of this admin,. would fall apart.

[Graag]

GePap:

So no, I don't think N.Korea is a very trustworthy actor, but they are willing to be bought a few years at a time, and right now, the US really can't , politically or
economically, afford a war in North East Asia.

How long will the US be willing to postpone action against DPRK? Until they lend a couple of scientists and nukes to Iran? I don't see how the US can dig itself out of the big fat nuclear hole it is now in, without taking pretty decisive action pretty damn soon.

[edited for stupidity]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed but would not you call the indefinate detention without trial of anyone at any time fitting with the US' great democratic tradition? Remember the bill of rights? The PATRIOT act was Bush wiping his ass with it.

And how is that going against DEMOCRACY? You fail to answer this. The Patriot Act was very democratic. The Congress voted on it, and Bush signed it.

Bush is no Wilsonian. His behavior towards the Cnetral asian dictatorships, Musharraf, Saudi Arabia, so forth and so on show that he does not give a damn about democracy.

The ends justify the means. And Wilsonianism wasn't really about democracy. Wilson didn't care about Asia and Africa being under colonialism (that isn't democracy for those regions, btw). Wilsonianism is simply believing that the United States is the beacon of morality in the world, and should spread its message to make the world a better place.

In short it is kind of paternalistic (and religious a bit), but basically believes in spreading its values.

Btw, Bush pushed for Musharraf to have elections (which happened), and has been pushing the PLA to have elections in January. Except for Saudi Arabia, I don't see where Bush has been not pushing for democracy.

And yes, a Wilsonian would back Israel. He would believe a democratic government based on American ideals is justified in defending itself against a dictatorship.

[GePap]

Graag:

The question should be, what kind of action can the US afford as far as North korea is concerned? A simple series of airstrikes won't achieve much. And they may set of a general war anyway. Any war with N.Korea might be short (a few months) but it would be far more destructive, not only to the US, but in general, thn any war in Iraq, even if the worst possible outcome (nukes against Tokyo) didn't come true. If the worst possible outcome did come true, then things would be realy bad. i mean, at the least you could expect a few days of tremendous drops on all Asian markets (and thus, most world markets) that such a war woudl start, and the worst the daamge, the lower the ticker goes.

And whats wit Iran? The North doesn't sell nukes, it sells missiles (Pakistan sells nuke info, oif reports are true and it was from Pak. that DPRK got a lot of it's designs) and Iran already has a nuclear program, which the Russians are helping along and the Iranians have invited the IAIE to come and inspect.

The fastest way for the US to dig itself out of its hole is to end this idiotic "no negotiationg line" and start talking to the NOrth Koreans, and find out what their current price is. My guess: cheaper than a war would be.

[Graag]

And how is that going against DEMOCRACY? You fail to answer this. The Patriot Act was very democratic. The Congress voted on it, and Bush signed it.

Apologies, I'll try to be more clear. If the government in power has the ability to imprison anyone, at any time, without needing to even give a reason, one man no longer has one vote. His vote is conditional on whether the administration agree with his opinions, if they don't they have the power to lock him up and take away his vote, without the need for proof of guilt, or even evidence.
And that is not the only measure of the PATRIOT act. The ability to bug and totally invade the privacy of any citizen, again without the need for evidence or justification utterly undermines the principles of democracy.

[GePap]

The ends justify the means. And Wilsonianism wasn't really about democracy. Wilson didn't care about Asia and Africa being under colonialism (that isn't democracy for those regions, btw). Wilsonianism is simply believing that the United States is the beacon of morality in the world, and should spread its message to make the world a better place.

In short it is kind of paternalistic (and religious a bit), but basically believes in spreading its values.

Btw, Bush pushed for Musharraf to have elections (which happened), and has been pushing the PLA to have elections in January. Except for Saudi Arabia, I don't see where Bush has been not pushing for democracy.

And yes, a Wilsonian would back Israel. He would believe a democratic government based on American ideals is justified in defending itself against a dictatorship.

A few things:

Bush did not push very hard in Pakistan for elections, and Mussharaf had stated before hand he would eventually hold them. As for the PA, that Buh using democracy as a weapon. After all, its not very democratic to demand elections but set rules about acceptable winners, and again, he has done nothing in Central Asia.

As for Wilson: he was also a racist, so that he did not give a damn about blacks is no surprise. I assume modern Republicans aren't racist, or maybe I am wrong?
And it was Wilson who first ebgun to make 'self-determination" a big deal, and as the PA is not even a ful government, comparisns between a war of states does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Apologies, I'll try to be more clear. If the government in power has the ability to imprison anyone, at any time, without needing to even give a reason, one man no longer has one vote.

Do we have any examples of this happening? Any US citizen locked up without reason? Until this happens you cannot make the claim.

The ability to bug and totally invade the privacy of any citizen, again without the need for evidence or justification utterly undermines the principles of democracy.

Ludicrous. This means Britain has undermined principles of democracy with all their cameras invading peoples' privacy everywhere.

Democracy is SIMPLY allowing people to vote (usually for represenatives).

[Graag]

GePap:

Hmm. Fair point on Iran, and again I agree that DPRK's price will be far far lower than a war.

But the US is just digging itself deeper; as you say Pakistan and Russia are being very helpful in arming non-nuclear countries, how long can the US continue buying off these ever multiplying nuclear nations? Particularly while it keeps up the axis of evil rhetoric.

Eventually something has to give, and it doesn't look like US foriegn policy is showing and signs of change.

[Graag]

Do we have any examples of this happening? Any US citizen locked up without reason? Until this happens you cannot make the claim.

Irrelevant.

Democracy is SIMPLY allowing people to vote

And a bill has been passed that allows the government to take away that right. That is the drying up of democracy I was speaking of.

This means Britain has undermined principles of democracy with all their cameras invading peoples' privacy everywhere.

Oh, and I'm not saying the govt. over here is doing any better.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Democracy is SIMPLY allowing people to vote (usually for represenatives).

The Soviets held regular elections.

Saying that Imran is like saying that being a Monarchy is SIMPLY having a monarch. And we all kow what a strict Monrachy that Japanese Emperor runs...


There is far more to democracy than having elections. Perhaps this last statement may explain why for some reason you believe Bush is a champion of democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush did not push very hard in Pakistan for elections, and Mussharaf had stated before hand he would eventually hold them.

Which is why he didn't push that hard. But he did keep sanctions on them until he needed them for the War on Terror... and even before them made Musharraf promise a timeline for elections.

its not very democratic to demand elections but set rules about acceptable winners

I agree that isn't that good (then again, I think he sees that Israel can't negotiate with Arafat so it would be best if he was out), but he has been pushing for it.

and again, he has done nothing in Central Asia.

Does anyone even notice Central Asia? Let them get on their feet first, and then demand changes.

he was also a racist, so that he did not give a damn about blacks is no surprise.

He didn't give a damn about ANYONE that wasn't white.

And it was Wilson who first ebgun to make 'self-determination" a big deal

Only for Europeans. Ho Chi Minh was thrown out of his hotel when he tried to ask for self-determination for Vietnam.

Wilson didn't care enough for self-determination to demand Europeans end colonialism.

and as the PA is not even a ful government

And Bush is the FIRST US President to ever call for an independant Palestinian state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And a bill has been passed that allows the government to take away that right.

Who's right to vote was taken away?

There is far more to democracy than having elections.

The only other requirements are having 2 or more parties, stable transition in governments, and duration of time of stability of the democracy.

But the MAIN thing is the vote. I don't see the patriot act abolishing the Democratic party or abolishing the right to vote.

Perhaps this last statement may explain why for some reason you believe Bush is a champion of democracy.

Because he really believes in it. I know, it's hard for someone who believes in demonizing Bush that Bush can believe in good things, but it is the truth. Instead of getting your view on Bush from Democratic and socialist sources perhaps you should listen to people who actually know the man (including journalists).

[GePap]

As I said elsewhere, beyond rhetoric, this admin has don nothing to advance democracy anywhere in the world (hey, look the Pal's postponed the elections, and Bush does what?), and I don't particularly care for simply rhetoric. I await results (Bush would never have intervened in the Balkans, from what I have seen this admin do) , and Iraq after the coming war will be a very nice test for them.

As for Bush beign the first to call for an independent Palestinian state: the one and ONLY worthwhile thing he has done as far as the ME conflict goes, and that's not saying much, since as for now, he has postponed the roadtrip, at the behest of Sharon.