Who else here is satisfied with Bush's performance in North Korea?

[DJPoopypants]

Well, he has a plan. and he sends messages too!


Q What have you guys done to make North Korea any less of a threat? Aren't they as much of a threat now as they --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that failed bilateral approach is the wrong way to go. What we did was the President got all the other nations in the region engaged in sending a clear message to North Korea that it needs to end its -- that it needs to abandon its nuclear ambitions. All five countries in the region are sending a clear message to North Korea, and they're all saying that they want a nuclear-free -- nuclear weapons-free peninsula.
Q Scott, where is that getting you?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we're continuing to make progress through the six-party talks. Those talks are ongoing. We expect that another round of talks will be coming up. And now, for the first time, you have all those nations in the neighborhood actively engaged --
Q Right, but that's not a new concept. The point is, you don't have any tangible progress.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- in a solution -- what this President is doing is confronting all the threats we face. And there are different strategies for confronting different threats. But we are pursuing a plan that will lead to the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, not a freeze.
Q Besides talk, name one piece of progress that you've made.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q Besides talk, name one piece of progress --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've put forward, now, a dismantlement plan in the last round of talks. We're waiting on North Korea's response to those talks.
Q -- piece of progress --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what we saw over the last decade, under the 1994 agreed to framework was that North Korea had not abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions. They were continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. So that policy was a failed approach. That's why the President went to the other nations in the region. China has been very involved in these efforts. China has stepped forward now to say, we want a nuclear weapons-free peninsula. And they've been actively engaged in those talks. So we're continuing to work through those talks and make progress to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambition.
Q In four years, have you been able to remove one nuclear weapon from North Korea or reduce the threat at all?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, what?
Q In four years, have you been able to reduce the threat at all in North Korea? Are they any less dangerous now?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's an issue that this President is leading the way to confront, by bringing all five parties in the region together in the six-party approach.

[Claymore]

So how does this play against Bush's vow not to seek the permission of others to protect our security? He doesn't want the UN involved in Iraq, but he sees no problem with waiting for five other nations to devise a plan for North Korea?

Jesus, this guy is all over the map...

[soccerphan]

Jesus, this guy is all over the map...


He's "all over the map" on this particular issue because he doesnt want to be responsible for North Korea launching nukes at anyone. I am satisified with how he's handled NK solely because I dont see where he could do anything different without starting WW3. I have no doubt that NK, having nothing to lose, would not hesitate to launch one of those babies at the US, UK or any other western democracy if provoked

[ElJefe]

So how does this play against Bush's vow not to seek the permission of others to protect our security? He doesn't want the UN involved in Iraq, but he sees no problem with waiting for five other nations to devise a plan for North Korea?

Jesus, this guy is all over the map...
Nuance, according to George W. Bush:

Not OK: Getting France's permission to go to war with Iraq.
OK: Getting Red China's permission to do ANYTHING about North Korea.

[stopper4]

No, no, no.

I'm with you liberals in that his post-war Iraq strategy is a disaster. But you have to tread very, very lightly around North Korea. There is a world of difference between, two-bit, evil little dictators with the a powerful army and the bomb and those without these things.

They have the bomb and are willing to use it. They don't care at all about the lives of their people. Nor their country's prosperity. They don't fear a revolution. Mutually assured destruction might not do it for them.

This potentially involves millions of lives of South Koreans, Chineese, Russians and Japaneese. Getting all these nations involved is a must. Getting the Chineese involved, and on our side is great progress.

Think of an evil, desperate, Caligula with nukes.

[ElJefe]

No, no, no.

I'm with you liberals in that his post-war Iraq strategy is a disaster. But you have to tread very, very lightly around North Korea. There is a world of difference between, two-bit, evil little dictators with the a powerful army and the bomb and those without these things.

They have the bomb and are willing to use it. They don't care at all about the lives of their people. Nor their country's prosperity. They don't fear a revolution. Mutually assured destruction might not do it for them.

This potentially involves millions of lives of South Koreans, Chineese, Russians and Japaneese. Getting all these nations involved is a must. Getting the Chineese involved, and on our side is great progress.

Think of an evil, desperate, Caligula with nukes.
So basically, they're a big problem because they've got the bomb. But because they've got the bomb, they're a big problem that we're going to not do anything about.

On the other hand, I can thing of a certain nation that was somewhat less of a problem because they didn't have the bomb. And because they didn't have the bomb, they're the problem that we did do something about.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[BenReilly]

Nuance, according to George W. Bush:

Not OK: Getting France's permission to go to war with Iraq.
OK: Getting Red China's permission to do ANYTHING about North Korea.

Going to war with NK is no longer an option. We're asking for France's help in dealing with Iran (a lot of good that will do).

[stopper4]

I'm not saying Iraq made a hell of a lot of sense.


But there are good reasons for not taking a hard line with North Korea:

1) nukes
2) large, nasty army
3) crazy and unpredictable
4) can be bought off with food (so far)

[DJPoopypants]

They have the bomb and are willing to use it. They don't care at all about the lives of their people. Nor their country's prosperity. They don't fear a revolution. Mutually assured destruction might not do it for them.



And these wildly inaccurate and speculative observations are based on what exactly?

[DJPoopypants]

2) large, nasty army
3) crazy and unpredictable
4) can be bought off with food (so far)

Have no regard for the prosperity of this country. Belligerant. Large nasty army. Crazy and unpredictable. Can be bought off with food.

But enough about the AARP, we're trying to talk North Korea here.

[Chris M.]

No, no, no.

I'm with you liberals in that his post-war Iraq strategy is a disaster. But you have to tread very, very lightly around North Korea. There is a world of difference between, two-bit, evil little dictators with the a powerful army and the bomb and those without these things.

They have the bomb and are willing to use it. They don't care at all about the lives of their people. Nor their country's prosperity. They don't fear a revolution. Mutually assured destruction might not do it for them.

This potentially involves millions of lives of South Koreans, Chineese, Russians and Japaneese. Getting all these nations involved is a must. Getting the Chineese involved, and on our side is great progress.

Think of an evil, desperate, Caligula with nukes.

I don't disagree with you at all, but I think the point is that this particular two-bit little dictator seems to have had the upper hand over Dubya. I'm not that up on my NK timeline, but wasn't it under Bush that the UN inspectors that were watching the spent fuel rods were kicked out of the country and we did nothing?

Of course NK presents a whole range of different problems, but it is a fair question to say "where is the progress?" If getting 5 nations somewhat in agreement to now address problems is the progress over four years, why should we expect any major successes over the next four years.

[Crimen y Castigo]

Well, according to North Korea's comments of a few weeks ago, it seems the Bush administration is making progress...

>>>
SEOUL (AFP) Aug 23, 2004
North Korea Monday described US President George W. Bush as an "imbecile" and a "tyrant" who was worse than Adolf Hitler, and ruled out holding new talks on nuclear weapons with the United States.

.....

"He is a political imbecile bereft of even elementary morality as a human being and a bad guy," said the spokesman, quoted by the official KCNA news agency.

...

"Bush's assumption of office turned a peaceful world into a pandemonium unprecedented in history as it is plagued with a vicious circle of terrorism and war," said the statement.

The spokesman went on to describe Bush as "a tyrant that puts Hitler into the shade" as well as "an idiot, an ignorant, a tyrant and a man-killer."

>>>

If Madrid could sign Figo away from Barca, then the North Koreans should really look into signing Zell Miller. He would fit perfectly into their lineup.

[DJPoopypants]

Well, according to North Korea's comments of a few weeks ago, it seems the Bush administration is making progress...


That is progress. You shoulda heard what they said about him in 2002....

[Dan Loney]

Under Clinton - NK had no nukes.

Under Bush - NK has nukes.

Nuance that.

[tpm]

Under Clinton - NK had no nukes.

Under Bush - NK has nukes.

Nuance that.

Brilliant deduction. Hmmm, did NK develop their whole program in the last 3.5 years? I think not. I thought Clinton "solved" the problem? Oh wait, it was just a "diplomatic" solution, not a "permanent" solution. :rolleyes:

Let's see, the diplomatic solution didn't really work in NK and isolated country on a peninsula that borders China, an emerging superpower, but it was going to work in Iraq...which is in the Middle East....which is teeming with terrorists trying to acquire them. Yeah, what the heck was Bush thinking in focusing on Iraq and not NK. :rolleyes:

[DJPoopypants]

Brilliant deduction. Hmmm, did NK develop their whole program in the last 3.5 years? I think not. I thought Clinton "solved" the problem? Oh wait, it was just a "diplomatic" solution, not a "permanent" solution. :rolleyes:

Let's see, the diplomatic solution didn't really work in NK ...

The pre-2000 strategy was trade oil/food for inspectors and promises of safe reactors if they stopped working on the proliferational ones.

It was a stall. It stopped/slowed NK work, and brought the parties to the table in the hopes that continued discussions might make a breakthrough. Tensions were lowered.

As such, it was a partial success.

Of course the biggest flaw in the plan was that Clinton's advisors did not think the next US president would start calling the leader of NK an evil pygmy - and thus light a fire under the collectives asses of the NK nuclear program.

[Ian McCracken]

Under Clinton - NK had no nukes.

Under Bush - NK has nukes.

Nuance that.

Nuance this:

Asked point-blank if North Korea developed nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration, Albright told NBC's "Meet the Press," "No, what they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating."

A 1999 congressional study determined that Pyongyang was cheating on the agreement, but Albright disregarded the warning and continued to claim that the Agreed Framework was a success.

[argentine soccer fan]

Lets stop the spin about this issue. President Bush is trying to work diplomatically with the nations in the area to dissuade North Korea from developing its nuclear weapon program. At the same time, he is supporting the development of the missile defense system which will defend against the type of threat that a Nuclear North Korea might pose.

Ok, not satisfied? What would you do different?

a) Would you try the Clinton approach? Send Jimmy Carter to sign a deal in which we HELP North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for an empty promise not to make weapons?

b) Do you support an attack against North Korea?

Nothing would make me happier than to see the US take out Kim Jon Il. I have met some NK refuges in China, and from what I heard, I think Kim is worse than Saddam. Nevertheless, North Korea has a stronger army than Iraq, and we have to consider that an attack would mean sacrificing South Korea and possibly Japan, not to mention the risk of getting China involved.

So, keeping this in mind, does anybody still support an attack?

c) Give another option, which might be better than what the current administration is trying to do. I'd love to hear it.

[irishFS1921]

mannyfreshstunna please pick up on the white courtesy phone, mannyfreshstunna please pick up.

[irishFS1921]

North Korea has a stronger army than Iraq
that's a mind crippling understatement. mannyfreshstunna where are you?