Options

[Zhukov]

We probably could not stop them from destroying.....Peking.

......


Yeah....I don't think we have to worry about North Korea detroying Peking.......or even Beijing for that matter.

 

[wade]

He didn't like the 1994 agreement so he decided he wanted to change it. You cannot keep renegotiating deals every time they (the NK's) want to change something.

Look at the history of Panmunjom and how many times the NK's would change what they wanted. It is part of their culture. The SK's are much the same way in business. They will place an order with you, take delivery and then try to renegotiate the price.

That is exactly what Kim was doing. He agreed to the 1994 agreement and then admitted he NEVER abided by it and wanted us to renegotiate a new deal with him. He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted. The Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans understand that as does Bush. However, due to your obvious lack of international experience, in Asia at least, YOU don't.

No, you are wrong. It was the USA that decided to back out of the 1994 agreement, negotiated in the previous two years. In 1994 the Congress went Republican, and the new Congress didn't like the terms of the deal.

Besides, you are offering no reasonable alternative. Should we just continue to do nothing and let NK become more and more dangerous? I agree it needs to be done carefully, but Albright went to the confrence with 17 items of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them, including inspections. It seems to me that, since we could always back out if we were unsatisfied with his compliance, it makes sense to take him up on the "deal" which means NK's immeadate cessation of nuclear weapons development, scuttling of it's missiles with a range greater than 300 miles, halting all weapons exports and technology transfers, and 7/24 inspection privlidges, in exchange for a gradual normalization of relations, starting with food and probably oil for NK.

I don't see the down side, again, if they don't comply, we can always back out.

Is what you are saying that there is no diplomatic solution, the only option is war no matter what terms are offered by NK? If so, then NK is pursuing the right course, as only nuclear and bio weapons can ensure their future.

BTW: I hate NK and Kim, it's a depraved regime. But it would be stupid to contiue the current policies.

Wade.

 

[wade]

......


Yeah....I don't think we have to worry about North Korea detroying Peking.......or even Beijing for that matter.

Grrr... I was reading Chinesse history last night and goofed. Big deal. You know what I mean. Go ahead and pick at nits.

 

[Comrade]

How about resuming talks with NK, accepting their offer of 2000 to stop their nuclear weapons program, stop their long range missile program, agree not to export any missile or nuclear tech, allow international inspection and 24/7 access, etc... all for gradual normalization of relations over a period of years and some kind of re-unification talks with SK in the future (this last one was non-specific)?

At the best, it works. At the worst, we are no worse off than we are, and NK probably does not advance it's tech or export it for at least a few years.

Asside: This kim guy is a nut. I bet if he were offered some kind of movie studio and a goodly yearly buget, he'd leave NK to become a film maker! He seems quite obsessed with film making.

Wade.

With NK in a position of even more leverage now, than when the Clinton admin. first agreed upon the US providing his regime regular oil-nuke-food supplies in return for his promise to not develop nuclear arms... and all along, while giving his regime the means to survive and function... Kim took a gigantic shit on the agreement.


http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd68/68ddnr02.htm

North Korea Crisis Escalates Amid Consternation and Confusion
As reported in the last issue, on October 16 the US State Department made public an admission it claimed to have received from North Korea during a visit to Pyongyang by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly two weeks earlier (October 3-5). Kelly's visit was the highest-level contact between the two sides since President Bush took office, raising hopes - particularly in the context of rapidly improving relations between Pyongyang and both South Korea and Japan - that concerns over North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes might soon be satisfactorily addressed as part of a general movement towards durable peace and security in the region. Those hopes were seemingly dashed by the State Department's revelations:

"Earlier this month, senior US officials traveled to North Korea to begin talks on a wide range of issues. During those talks, Assistant Secretary James A. Kelly and his delegation advised the North Koreans that we had recently acquired information that indicates that North Korea has a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements. North Korean officials acknowledged that they have such a program. The North Koreans attempted to blame the United States and said that they considered the Agreed Framework nullified. ... Over the summer, President Bush - in consultation with our allies and friends - had developed a bold approach to improve relations with North Korea. The United States was prepared to offer economic and political steps to improve the lives of the North Korean people, provided the North were dramatically to alter its behavior across a range of issues, including its weapons of mass destruction programs, development and export of ballistic missiles, threats to its neighbors, support for terrorism, and the deplorable treatment of the North Korean people. In light of our concerns about the North's nuclear weapons program, however, we are unable to pursue this approach. North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Agreed Framework as well as under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. ... The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner. We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation. Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea."

The period since the October 16 announcement has been marked by confusion over the exact nature of North Korea's admission, consternation at the bewilderingly sudden turn of events, and anxiety over the long-term ramifications of any collapse of the 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework, under which the North is to be provided with proliferation-resistant light-water reactors (LWRs) in return for fully honouring its NPT obligations.
[/qoute]


So only now, with Kil Il armed with actual warheads and long range missiles, you say this appeasement is supposed to be effective... why do I feel that's naive at best, and self-destructive at best?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue? I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.

 

[Comrade]

Absolutely. The offensive capability in N.K. will exceed our capacity for defence as they attain modern deployment and greater range and numbers, even nuclear subs, while our defense tech is very difficult and slow going.

We have to hit them once our ABM defense is still good enough and their development remains primitive.

We can't wait.

Umm, your belief in our ability to successfully intercept all their missiles is totally unfounded.

To you it's like I offered a foolproof plan, when it's not more than a commenyt on the increasing vulnerability between our ABM defense tech vs. their ballistic offensive tech 'once' it's deployed. No, instead you're just making up that claim to offer defeatism while simply ignoring the future as an alternative scenario.

We could not stop them from destroying Soul, it's nearly impossible.
We probably could not stop them from destroying Tokyo and Peking as well.

And so some repitition of hollow appeasement for another decade also leaves us unable to stop them from destroying them as well as another 50-100 cities beyond, a condition even more full of hopeless fear and demanding more appeasement.

Remember in 1994 when the oil-food-nuclear tech trade in return for their promise not to produce nuclear weapons was first established? Resulting in a continuance of Kim Ils' tyranny and ~8 nuclear warheads today.

We might be able to stop missiles headed for the USA, but if they fired a dozen, I'd bet at least one would get through (assuming they actually can get here successfully).

That being a future scenario, when a dozen warheads deployed with a long rang missile is able to reach Alaska, Hawaii, or even the North West, we'll assume one will get through despite our indeterminate ABM technology at that time. And also assume then his life and his regime, utterly crushed in retaliation, is worth what could maybe be, perhaps, an attack with a low yield and little accuracy.

While that's possible I wonder when the point I made is relevent to you.

As when some hundreds of MIRV ICMB warheads exist under N.K.... and when we're even more strongly encouraged to make additional concessions beyond what you recommend.

As long as we are talking of the same regime and leader, of course, who always shit on promises made to America.

And in many cases, even successful interception does not mean no signficant damage will result. The course of the missile will still probably land a big chunk of weapons grade plutonium or uranium in our neighborhood.

Good, if there's a chunk and nobody comes within a few feet it's contained. If vaporized it's spread out into the atmosphere. It's not even remotely as bad as radioactive fallout visited in diluted forms around the Earth in hundreds of massive radioactive generating blasts from a working warhead.

And do you think China is going to accept the losses it incures on our behalf without responding?

You mean do I think N.K. will attack China and then expect China to attack the USA? No.

I think you are falling for the hype. Remember how our Patriots were shooting the scuds out of the sky with ease? Remember what the truth turned out to be?

Yep, all but one missile landed upon and caused any casualties at all.

Ths was in fact already a missile intercepted and rendered without guidance from a direct hit, and only by sheer luck did it fall upon a tent where we know that half of the Gulf '91 casualties can be counted from.

And after fifteen years the technology is far more better.

Do you have a hi-tech background Comrade?

Of course I do. The real question is, where do you presume that there are at least dozen nuclear warheads now in reach of the USA from North Korea?

It's not really about being 'hi-tech', it's about you making an Argument from Authority. That requires you to be intimate with the details of operational deployment contrary to all public sources about the number of warheads and the range of current operational N.K. ballistic tech. So what the hell do you know, and why should I be impressed?

 

[CSM]

IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue? I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.

I do think that Wade is well educated. I am not so sure about the "appeaser" part. As for the security info, I have not seen anything he has posted that cannot be found on public access internet. Despite the little spat he and I have had within the past few days, I think he has expressed his opinion rather well, though I do not agree with a lot of it. I do think his supporting evidence is sometimes weak and that his logic often leaves something to be desired, but overall, he does raise some good issues for debate.

 

[freeandfun1]

IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue? I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.

I think you are right. He seems to have a lot of BOOK knowledge, but not much else. And even then, his BOOK knowledge is gained from books which HE selects and therefore, most likely already support his predisposed positions.

If there is ONE area in this world I can claim I have a lot of knowledge about, it is Korea. I was stationed there in the military for three years and I spent my 1.5 years as a liaison between 3rd BDE, 2 ID and the 1st ROKA Division in Paju-gun. That was many years ago yes, but since then, I have kept close ties with the country and the politics. I know MANY Koreans that have been to NK as part of political delegations, I know reporters living in Seoul and Hong Kong that have written extensive stories on NK after having visited there and I myseflf have met with a NK business delegation in Beijing as part of a US BXA promotion as we tried to induce NK with business instead of bombs. Further, I own a business in SK, my wife owns property in Korea and I represent US companies that manufacture products for the defense industry into Korea. As part of my business I have a LOT of meetings with Ministry of National Defense personnel as well as USFK Military Liaisons to the Korean MND. I know a LOT about Korea, its military, etc. and I consider Korea my second home.

Yet for some reason, Wade seems to think he has an exclusive on knowing HOW to deal with Korea and Koreans.

Wade is smart, I have to give him that. But for some reason, when I think of what Wade might look like, I envision some kid sitting in a wheel chair, reading books all day and living vicariously through USMB......

I hope I am wrong cuz if I am not, some might think that is mean.

 

[Comrade]

IS it me or does wade seem like a well educated appeaser who throws around a lot of security info, but really doesn't have a clue? I'd like some other opinions to more fully inform my opinion.

Well sure, but it's only the lack of our 'hi-tech background' that keeps us from seeing how N.K. will attack Peking, China, along with a conflict with the wealthy Asian Democracies, in a future missile exchange.

 

[wade]

Comrade - the article you reference is 2 years after Pres. Bush dropped the ball.

-----

My point is we should have taken Kim up on his offer. This would have at least slowed their nuke progress, and more importantly, it would have given us access to NK that we do not have. Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress. 7/24 inspection access would have done wonders for our intelligence about NK. And finally, as it is turning out, NK is gaining what it needs from the Euro's, which defeats our intrests in that they are not gaining the intel we need, they didn't/couldn't bargain for it.

If we didn't think we were getting what we needed from any deal with NK, we could have backed out at any time.

Appeasers give more than they get. I never suggested we take such a course, not even close.

Wade.

 

[Zhukov]

Grrr... I was reading Chinesse history last night and goofed. Big deal. You know what I mean. Go ahead and pick at nits.

The Peking/Beijing comment was an after-thought. The main point is I seriously doubt NK is going to attack China. The very idea is absurd.

 

[wade]

The Peking/Beijing comment was an after-thought. The main point is I seriously doubt NK is going to attack China. The very idea is absurd.

Hmmm... as an agressor no. But I think it is quite possible that if pressed to war, they would do so, or at least threaten to do so, to make sure China had a stake in it. Basically, I think if they had the capacity, they would hit every major target within their range. Remember who we're dealing with.

Wade.

 

[CSM]

Hmmm... as an agressor no. But I think it is quite possible that if pressed to war, they would do so, or at least threaten to do so, to make sure China had a stake in it. Basically, I think if they had the capacity, they would hit every major target within their range. Remember who we're dealing with.

Wade.

It doesn't make any sense either from a strategic view or tactical view for Nk to attack China. The repercussions would be too catastrophic for NK. Japan on the other hand makes for a very lucrative target in the sense that NK does not avctually have to attack japan but merely demonstrate the capability to do so. Once they have done that convincingly, I am willing to bet that the NK blackmail attempts will begin in earnest.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade - the article you reference is 2 years after Pres. Bush dropped the ball.

-----

You have to ask yourself, really, why you seem to give every benefit of doubt to the Kim Il Jong regime on the subject.

Consider you would seem to be so generous that the actual date o violation is in fact on the date of Kims' admission of such... Oct, 2001. Still a few months shy of two full years.


But more accurately, the violation of the agreement was in fact a proven fact well before that, even prior to the "Axis of Evil" speech, a speech not relevant at all in those agreed upon provisions, rather, a reaction provoked by Kims' utter disregard for those provisions.

http://www.npec-web.org/opeds/dilemma2.htm

Still, the deal required North Korea in time to come in line: Pyongyang was supposed to allow comprehensive IAEA inspections to be completed by the time the promised reactor project was half-built. North Korea was also obligated to implement the 1992 North-South denuclearization declaration, which forbade possession or production of nuclear explosives, including facilities for enriching uranium for bombs, and remain a party to the nonproliferation treaty.

The IAEA inspections, though, never started when they were supposed to -- by May 2002, according to the reactor construction schedule. With North Korea stiffing the IAEA and attacking the agency as a "tool" of a hostile U.S. policy, it became evident that Pyongyang was never going to permit IAEA inspectors to discover that the illicit plutonium was now in bombs.

Clear, undeniable violations of the original Clinton pact is now in fact dated a year since Bush took office.

So while you can choose to ignore a clear violation well before the 'two years' until their admission, you'd also have to assume under that same logic, that if no admission by North Koreas was made at all, then they'd not be in violation at all.

But as a reasonale person, I'd assume May, 2001, was also a time well after the few years necessary in lead time up to their operational nuclear capability afterwards.

Even in 1999, indications of such a program were threatened to become open policy instead of a covert program.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact

There were increasing disagreement between North Korea and U.S. on the scope and implementation of the treaty. When by 1999 economic sanctions had not been lifted and full diplomatic relations between U.S. and North Korea had not been established, North Korea warned that they would resume nuclear research unless the U.S. kept up its end of the bargain. U.S. has repeatedly stated that further implementation would be stalled as long as suspicions remained that the North Korean nuclear weapons research program continued covertly.

My point is we should have taken Kim up on his offer.

What offer? A 1994 hudna? Or just some rehash of this same kind of smoke up our ass made in 2002?

This would have at least slowed their nuke progress, and more importantly, it would have given us access to NK that we do not have.

Since when? They never granted free access to any foriegn inspection, ever, period.


[/Quote]
Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.

I bet it hurts a bit. And I also bet a bounty of oil/food is helpfull in all aspects, including nuclear research. Why not?

7/24 inspection access would have done wonders for our intelligence about NK.

Never heard of such an offer nor would it be granted without restriction to any locale. That's insane. Link to the offer, and then convince us it's a genuine act of Kim and his open policy of peace.

And finally, as it is turning out, NK is gaining what it needs from the Euro's, which defeats our intrests in that they are not gaining the intel we need, they didn't/couldn't bargain for it.

Well you're probably right about that. Euro's care little for sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and humanitarian policy, given a purely anti-American regime to trade with.

If we didn't think we were getting what we needed from any deal with NK, we could have backed out at any time.

So they violated it, and Bush challenged Kim Il to adhere to it, and then after so much bullshit from him we cut him off. And it's nothing you seem to disapprove.

Appeasers give more than they get. I never suggested we take such a course, not even close.

Kim Il wiped his ass with the treaty under Clinton already, and developed nuclear weapons well in advance of 2002. So any ideas how to repay him giving us less than nothing?

 

[wade]

You have to ask yourself, really, why you seem to give every benefit of doubt to the Kim Il Jong regime on the subject.

Consider you would seem to be so generous that the actual date o violation is in fact on the date of Kims' admission of such... Oct, 2001. Still a few months shy of two full years.

Okay, about 18 months. By this time the "agreement" was already finished, as Pres. Bush had already refused to finish it.

But more accurately, the violation of the agreement was in fact a proven fact well before that, even prior to the "Axis of Evil" speech, a speech not relevant at all in those agreed upon provisions, rather, a reaction provoked by Kims' utter disregard for those provisions.

http://www.npec-web.org/opeds/dilemma2.htm


Clear, undeniable violations of the original Clinton pact is now in fact dated a year since Bush took office.

So while you can choose to ignore a clear violation well before the 'two years' until their admission, you'd also have to assume under that same logic, that if no admission by North Koreas was made at all, then they'd not be in violation at all.

How can you point to "violations" of an agreement that was never consumated? Bush chose to let this opportunity go, and had made it clear this was his intent more than a year before the dates you're referencing.

But as a reasonale person, I'd assume May, 2001, was also a time well after the few years necessary in lead time up to their operational nuclear capability afterwards.

Even in 1999, indications of such a program were threatened to become open policy instead of a covert program.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear pact


What offer? A 1994 hudna? Or just some rehash of this same kind of smoke up our ass made in 2002?

Since when? They never granted free access to any foriegn inspection, ever, period.

Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.

I bet it hurts a bit. And I also bet a bounty of oil/food is helpfull in all aspects, including nuclear research. Why not?

Becuase nuclear R&D was already fully funded. More oil and food was not going to change that priority.

Never heard of such an offer nor would it be granted without restriction to any locale. That's insane. Link to the offer, and then convince us it's a genuine act of Kim and his open policy of peace.

I already did give you links to the Madiline Albright mission to NK. Notice she went with 17 points of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them.

Well you're probably right about that. Euro's care little for sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and humanitarian policy, given a purely anti-American regime to trade with.

So you agree that effectively NK got improved relations with the west for nothing right?

So they violated it, and Bush challenged Kim Il to adhere to it, and then after so much bullshit from him we cut him off. And it's nothing you seem to disapprove.

Bush challenged Kim to adhere to what? An agreement Bush had already scrapped in 2000?

Kim Il wiped his ass with the treaty under Clinton already, and developed nuclear weapons well in advance of 2002. So any ideas how to repay him giving us less than nothing?

Again, I point to the FACT that President G.W. Bush had already scrapped the 2000 deal set down by Albright under Clintion. Why in the world would you expect Kilm to abide by the deal when Bush had already said "no deal", way back in early/mid 2000? The day that Bush rebuked Powell, the deal was over.

Wade.

 

[wade]

It doesn't make any sense either from a strategic view or tactical view for Nk to attack China. The repercussions would be too catastrophic for NK. Japan on the other hand makes for a very lucrative target in the sense that NK does not avctually have to attack japan but merely demonstrate the capability to do so. Once they have done that convincingly, I am willing to bet that the NK blackmail attempts will begin in earnest.

Hmmm... how do I explain this..

What happens is NK makes it clear it will go wild and hit everything in reach if the USA takes miltiary action against it. This makes China say.. "hey, USA you better not do anything that gets China nuked or else". Basically, NK is a threat draw China into any conflict, regaurdless of consequences, in order to ensure that China is not neutral about the issue.

I agree, the consequences of NK obtaining long range nuclear capability, either through long range missiles or sub launched missiles, is a very serious concern. The question is, what can we do about it?

Wade.

 

[CSM]

You are assuming that will be China's response. The Chinese could just as easily decide that the NK regime has indeed gone completely insane and, in an effort to protect themselves from future blackmail/threats, decide to eliminate the dangerous, uncontrollable paria themselves or in concert with a coalition of forces from around that part of the world.

As to what to do about it, well, that is the question isn't it. Military force (including blockade) is an option, but a risky one for a lot of reasons. Sanctions against an already devestated country is an option, but only works if the rest of the world abides by that. Negotiations will only work if both sides are negotiating in good faith, which is doubtful, given NK's past history.

It is a dilemma.

 

[Comrade]

Okay, about 18 months. By this time the "agreement" was already finished, as Pres. Bush had already refused to finish it.

That would be four months actually, when it was obvious beyond all reason that N.K. violated the terms.

You think they developed nukes in a few months as a result of Bush who cut them off. You need to prove it that N.K. not only developed them without the years all regimes, especially one so isolated as N.K. need. But also convince us the actions is due to Bush and his actions, as opposed what is clearly Bush's challenge and revelation of Kims' violations.

How can you point to "violations" of an agreement that was never consumated? Bush chose to let this opportunity go, and had made it clear this was his intent more than a year before the dates you're referencing.

Take May 2001, and go back one year. Do you even know who was President then? May 2000?

Clinton.

Yes it would have meant oil/food for NK, but lack of these things does not effect their nuke progress.

Sure it does. I wonder if you want to explain it, or should I?

Becuase nuclear R&D was already fully funded. More oil and food was not going to change that priority.

Assuming all state projects are supposed to operate without support from such oil and food, that might be right. But you're wrong.

I already did give you links to the Madiline Albright mission to NK. Notice she went with 17 points of contention and Kim acceeded to all of them.

Well of course he did. How did we ever doubt Dear Leader from his word?

Did you know what she gave him as a gift? Look!:

http://www.1stopkorea.com/?nk-trip1.htm~mainframe

After that we were taken to see the gifts to Kim Jong-il. This was actually more interesting than his dad's place, mainly because everything was more recent (Kim Jr. having taking over only in the mid-90s). The first room we were taken contained gifts presented by prominent South Korean industrialists during their visits in the late 90s. Sitting side-by-side were top-of-the-line LG, Samsung and Hyundai entertainment systems, complete with large screen TVs, stereos, VCRs and plenty of speakers. Some of the same equipment you might have sitting in your living room, here sitting in a museum showing off the glorious gifts received by the Dear Leader.

The next room contained more gifts from the South, including a Hyundai Grandeur donated by the former chairman of Hyundai (whose family is originally from the North). Mr. Huk asked me if I had ever seen one of these cars during my time in the South. When I said, "sure, my neighbor has one just like it," he gave me another one of his 'you have to be lying' looks. How could such a great gift, a gift implying so much respect, belong to some normal person like my neighbor? This was obviously a car reserved for the elite, capitalist oppressors, not some common car for the masses. When I told him I wished the chairman had given away a lot more so there'd be less traffic in the South he got fed up with my obvious lies, gave me a disgusted look and moved on to talk to someone else.

Ever wonder why CNN seems to be the only Western news organization regularly allowed into North Korea? The next room perhaps offered a clue. In the 'Gifts from America' room a whole section of one wall is taken up by gifts from CNN. A few engraved plaques, a coffee cup (yeah, a freaking coffee cup!), a logo ashtray, etc. Probably at most a couple hundred bucks worth of crap that nonetheless get pride of place in the museum - for they reveal obvious signs of respect from a world famous news organization. The people at CNN are certainly using their heads and showing they know how to play the game. Though one wonders how that fits in with journalistic integrity . . .

Another of the interesting gifts in this section was the guestbook signature from former U.S. President Carter's visit. The several sentences, "wishing you peace and good fortune" (hard to remember verbatim when notes and pictures are banned) were a model of empty diplomatic phrases. Exactly the kind of stuff we were getting used to saying ourselves.

The other interesting gift is one I mentioned at the very beginning of this travelogue - a basketball autographed by Michael Jordan. This one presented by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright during here Fall 2000 visit to Pyongyang. It was funny seeing Mr. Huk's eyes light up in recognition of the name we had asked him about the day before when trying to figure out what he knew of the outside world.

"That's the person you talked about? He really is a basketball player!?" Mr. Huk was incredulous that a simple autographed basketball was all that the mighty US government had come up with. No cars, entertainment centers or nice respectful plaques, just a freaking basketball. It seemed to bother him for quite a while, he even asked me about it later on the bus ride back to Pyongyang. When I told him Jordan is kind of an American god, who got his start by playing basketball, he seemed to be somewhat mollified. Madeline Albright, if you're out there, excellent call on the gift - you certainly puzzled the hell out of a lot of North Koreans!

So you agree that effectively NK got improved relations with the west for nothing right?

I think I'm trying to point out that after 10 years under a Clinton policy of nuclear tech, oil, and food in return for no agreement to follow through with inspections whatsoever (note the rods in the reactor were inspected by a SINGLE WEBCAM), we are total idiots for trusting Kim Il and keeping his state strong enough to continue with our subsidy, while finding ourselves not just facing a conventional power but now a nuclear one as well... a project developed for years before Bush ever took power. Now you say we should do it again...

Bush challenged Kim to adhere to what? An agreement Bush had already scrapped in 2000?

Link?

Again, I point to the FACT that President G.W. Bush had already scrapped the 2000 deal set down by Albright under Clintion. Why in the world would you expect Kilm to abide by the deal when Bush had already said "no deal", way back in early/mid 2000? The day that Bush rebuked Powell, the deal was over.

Wade.

You are fuggin high dude. Bush in 2000.. think...

 

[wade]

I typed 2000 near the end where I meant to type 2001. Ooops... my bad for replying late at night.

The point I keep trying to get through to you is THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO BE BROKEN! The deal on the table when Bush took office in 2001 was never consumated, so why would you expect NK's nuclear program would not have proceeded?

Why do you deny that this was an opportunity lost? At worst, Kim would have broken the deal and that would have been that. At best, he would have honored at least enough of it to justify our continuing the deal. If we had gotten inspections as promised, it would have been worth contuinuing, and if not, we would simply have backed out having gained tremeondous intel through the exercise.

Personally, I think Kim could be bought. Make the right offer and he'd be out of Korea making dirty movies and living the playboy life.

Wade.

 

[wade]

You are fuggin high dude....

I don't get it. Is the word "Fuck" not allowed on this board?

I really don't see how this can be the case...

????

LOL

Wade