The Bush team will probably follow their familiar pattern of ignoring the dilemma while creating a public relations smokescreen to conceal their incompetence.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice will undoubtedly make their appearances on the morning talk shows claiming that "we are all much safer" under the enlightened leadership of George Bush. Perhaps, they could synchronize their silly assertions to coincide with the explosion of Korea's next nuclear weapon.
How could Bush let the situation get so out-of-hand? After all, the central tenet of the war on terror is: "We will not let the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the hands of the world's worst dictators"? Instead, they have elevated an unstable megalomaniac into a nuclear-armed menace. It could turn out to be the greatest foreign policy meltdown in American history.
Bush needs to forgo the Texas bravado and make substantive changes to the present policy before North Korea becomes the world's largest WMD-production factory.
First, he should agree to two-party talks with representatives from the North, which is what North Korea has demanded from the very beginning.
Second, he should review all sanctions directed against North Korea and publicly state that he will reassess whether they are truly justified.
Third, (and most important) Bush should offer firm assurances in the form of a treaty that North Korea WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE UNITED STATES IF IT ABANDONS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS. This has been the North's primary demand from the very onset of the crisis. (although it has been omitted from newspaper coverage to conceal the fact that the rest of the world is actually terrified of the America's erratic behavior)
Forth, the administration should reconsider providing the oil, food, and light-water reactors which were part of the original "Framework Agreement" as long as North Korea agrees to undergo intensive "go anywhere, see anything" inspections conducted by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
A larger tragedy can still be averted if cooler heads prevail. The time for bluster is past. The present policy is a dead-loss which has put everyone in greater peril.
The North is currently working out the kinks in its Taepo-dong ICBM. If we are serious that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," (as Condi Rice opined) the administration must take positive steps to defuse the present crisis; its time to change directions, amend the policy, and negotiate a peaceful settlement. The alternatives are too horrific to even consider.
Mike said "Third, (and most important) Bush should offer firm assurances in the form of a treaty that North Korea WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY THE UNITED STATES IF IT ABANDONS ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS. This has been the North's primary demand from the very onset of the crisis. (although it has been omitted from newspaper coverage to conceal the fact that the rest of the world is actually terrified of the America's erratic behavior)"
Based on that statement Kim and his severely stressed military could roll into Seoul with the assurance that the US would not come to the aid of South Korea and defend off the hordes.
/Care to try again?
//And a citation to prove that the world is terrified of the US posssible actions? Or maybe you meant the world's non democratic nations are terrified over their helpless enss and are trying to blame the US for how they are suffering.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 5:42:58 PM
So what's your point, Featherhead? As usual, you don't seem to have one. Unfortunately, I always try to take you seriously, until, once again, I realize I'm wasting my time.
Mike has made many excellent points in his article. We obviously need to start somewhere, and you give absolutely no indication as to what you'd suggest.
Perhaps if we began talking and considering diplomacy, instead of hurling insults as you and George seem wont to do, we could begin to hammer out details acceptable to both sides.
You seem to miss the point that writers at this site are seeking solutions, not trying to create more problems.
Perhaps if you had a glass belly-button inserted, you could see this more clearly.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 74 quicklinks, 123 diaries, 750 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 9:43:03 PM
Diplomacy is a word that has no meaning to DUBYA and his den of vipers. They think they can bully everyone into agreeing with their lame-brained ideas, much like vulturetx. The problem is, bullies always end up getting the shit kicked out of them one way or another.
When I was in high school, there was this one certain drip that haunted my days for three years. He was constantly picking on me, calling me a fag, or making statements out loud designed to embarrass me. One day of my Junior year, I grabbed him by his neck and slammed his head into a locker a few times. I don't know how I didn't snap his scrawny neck or give him a concusion. After that, he left me well alone, and gave me wide bearth.
The problem with the bully DUBYA is when some nation decides to grab him by the throat and slam his sorry ass up against a locker, we are going to be the ones paying the price for his arrogance and inability to negotiate.
Just today, North Korea tested their nuke. Of course they did. They see what happened to Iraq. They see our military steaming headlong towards Iran. They know they are next on our list of things to do, so to speak. The last thing we need to do is to make the situation even more dangerous by calling their bluff. If they can make one really big radioactive boom, they can do it again. With their new generation of missiles, they can get us in a walk. Of course, that's if they work out the kinks in the system. Who's to say they won't work out those kinks sooner rather than later?
So what are we to do? Getting DUBYA on the unemployment line would be a damned good place to start. If the fallout from Foleygate goes the way I think (and hope) it goes, the resulting congressional turnover and the investigations that are sure to follow may throw DUBYA and Dick(LESS) Cheney out on their asses.
Of course, that's a long term solution built on a lot of "if's". In the short term, the best we can do is impress upon our representatives in DC the gravity of the matter. Not that it will have any effect, mind you. Goddess knows, I have numerous emails from Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson saying she got a copy of my petitions. I get the feeling she hasn't read my words.
So, I suppose the only thing we can do is hope we are out of range when the big one comes flying over from North Korea with our names on it. Either that, or we will need to learn how to prepare three-headed trout, and steaks from six legged cows.
Blessed be! (We need as many blessings as we can get)
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 4:05:09 AM
You OTOH decided to miss my point which was format blocked to be noticeable. Instead you continue to insult me and claim I need some form of ομφαλοσκόπηση.
/The DEMs will win in November despite you.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:26:39 AM
Here is one and we can go from there...
Harris Poll that shows Europeans think the US is a bigger threat to Global Security than China or Iran
click here
You Republicans have on the most amazing blinders. I guess as long as something isn't shown on Fox news, you assume it doesn't exist.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Monday, October 9, 2006 at 9:46:34 PM
... but you are obviously only arguing to be argumentative without contributing anything.
The point is made. The world, meaning Europe, Asia and Africa, regard us as a major threat, more serious than China and Iran. Play all the elementary school quality denial games you want. I will not respond or take you seriously again until you demonstrate that you deserve it.
If you keep arguing the way you have been arguing, I will recommend to Rob and all other authors here that we flag and remove your comments. This forum is about serious people putting forth serious arguments.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:23:42 AM
Comment is flagged and has been reviewed by the editors -
Reason: Totally Irrelevant
Editor's Message: Two strikes. Your insulting, distorting remarks are not welcome here. If you want to discuss issues and ideas, that's fine. Calling names, insulting all the readers of the site-- is unacceptable.
"I will flag all your post" nice threat there. Considering that others are insulting and trolling also on this website. That Rob Kall felt compeleed to put a warning to all you "progressives" NOT to flame the one pro-gwb article that has been posted. So this site's own editor thinks little of your impulse control.
Next it was a limited poll which you extrapolate to be everybody. It also did not mention the word "erratic" not any other word implying "random unplanned actions". Stability is threatened because the US is changing the status of what is considered acceptable behavior.
Finally is this place is about "serious" arguments (which I doubt given the articles factual integrity around here) then you welcome it to be put up for critical review.
You will note that the flaw in guaranteeing DPRK immunity from US attack as long as the North Koreans don't use nuclear weapons means their massive armies can invade Seoul without the threat of US retaliation. A threat which has existed for over 50 years. And kept South Korea independent. Just like Taiwan.
/short fuse you got there Leser. Which is confusing considering you are about to be in power shortly.
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:40:26 AM
Insult? Yeah like you calling me a "Koolaid Drinker" was not an insult? I liked you better when you admitted you were being a hypocrite(the middle east group email).
/Later!
by
Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 1:21:28 PM
Nobody in their right mind would defend that sawed-off nut in N.K. And yet, somehow, there seems people ready to take blame off him for developing nuclear weapons and put it on George Bush? hahahahahaha What's next? Let's forgive Stalin? What, the evil United States drove Stalin to order the development of nuclear weapons? Drove him to continue to enslave the population and run massive Gulags?
Think about it for a second. What happened in those 7 years before Bush showed up? Do a little research and get the actual facts. During those 7 Clinton years, the maniac in N.K. lied, cheated, and developed his nuclear facilities and stockpiled plutonium and continued to enslave and brutalize the population of a country.
The hatred of George Bush seems to drive super-lefties right off the deep end and they cast off all logic, ignore facts, and make stuff up if George Bush isn't the villian of the piece! It's crazy! Jumping to the defence of maniac dictators and insane islamic jihadists to try and take a poke at Bush? What in the world are you thinking about? Think about what you stand for. Those people you are defending so you can take a shot at Bush stand 100% against your views and would have you imprisoned, tortured, and probably killed.
by
DonMcKellar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 7:18:35 AM
This is the same old tactic republicans have used in the last 10 years: If you disagree our way of thinking, you must support our enemies. That's not what people are saying. What they are saying is that if "The Decider" had tried to open a dialouge, or lived up to his end of the bargain that "Godless" President Clinton made with NK, maybe we wouldn't BE in this situation. I don't know why I try to argue with Bush supporters, they never listen to common sense anyway. With everything Bush has done to desroy our Freedom and alienate us from the rest of the world, the average Republican refuses to use common sense. Maybe they just don't have any sense to begin with.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 9:16:07 AM
Appeasing tyrants, giving into their demands, negotiating with them -- all of history shows us what happens when you do that. It only gives them more time to do what they're going to do while they laugh behind your back.
I'm just saying that it is a mistake to defend any political tyrant or religious extremist's actions by hanging the blame on George Bush. Power mad tyrants and religious zealots were around long before him, and they'll be around long after him. And the only effective way there has ever been, or ever will be to stop them, is military action, or a cold war style freeze out and isolation until they collapse. Hitler was stopped the in the former manner, the USSR was destroyed with the later technique. Nobody in the history of the world has ever stopped a powermad tyrant or a fundamentalist religious zealot bent on enslaving populations by giving them candies and patting them on the head and letting them have their way only enables them to stay in power.
And besides, how in the world can you hold the United States government responsible for North Korea? Who has enabled the ruthless father-son team to survive? The two countries who are responsible for having failed policies are China and South Korea. Why aren't they the focus of such discussions? If it weren't for them, that little nutjob would have been gone a decade ago. Now China and South Korea are going to reap what they sowed, unfortunately.
by
DonMcKellar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:46:57 AM
I said below, there is 100 miles of grey between appeasement
... and provoking or ignoring someone. Even James Baker is talking about how we can negotiate with North Korea click here .
Is Baker proposing appeasement? Seems your argument is with Republicans as much as with Democrats. AND if we are going to talk directly with them NOW, why werent we talking with them for six years during which we could have prevented them from becoming completely nuclear. Now we see where George W. Bush's culpability comes in. We SHOULD have been talking directly with them all along.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 12:08:57 PM
Appeasing tyrants, giving into their demands, negotiating with them -- all of history shows us what happens when you do that. It only gives them more time to do what they're going to do while they laugh behind your back
You mean in the same way DUBYA is laughing behind the backs of Americans who have willingly and stupidly surrendered their rights and liberties for what he promises to be safety? We have all negotiated with the devil, and now we are free to watch as more rights are taken from us. Add to that the fact that we are less safe than we were before DUBYA screwed us into a corner, and you are absolutely right in what you say.
I'm just saying that it is a mistake to defend any political tyrant or religious extremist's actions by hanging the blame on George Bush. Power mad tyrants and religious zealots were around long before him, and they'll be around long after him. And the only effective way there has ever been, or ever will be to stop them, is military action, or a cold war style freeze out and isolation until they collapse. Hitler was stopped the in the former manner, the USSR was destroyed with the later technique. Nobody in the history of the world has ever stopped a powermad tyrant or a fundamentalist religious zealot bent on enslaving populations by giving them candies and patting them on the head and letting them have their way only enables them to stay in power.
But you once again miss the point here. DUBYA IS a power mad tyrant! Can he be called anything less? No, he cannot. He has proven his tyrrany over and over again, yet the kool-aide drinkers flatly refuse to see they are the ones supporting a tyrant.
DUBYA can also be seen as a "religious extremist" or a "fundamentalist religious zealot", or have you so quickly and conveniently forgotten that he relied on a "higher father" when making his decision to go to war in Iraq. Have you also forgotten he says the jury is still out on evolution. Have you also forgotten that his political puppetmaster Hot Karl Rove has repeatedly mobilized the forces of the Religious Reich, even though Rove is an avowed atheist? While the case could be made that DUBYA is no more christian than I, I think his actions under the guise of religiousity qualify his as a "religious extremist"!
So should we also offer cookies and candy to the tyrant DUBYA? He's obviously bent on destroying the constitution, rule of law, the middle class and poor, and anything else he can get his hands on. Should we freeze him out or kick his ass?
Well?
And besides, how in the world can you hold the United States government responsible for North Korea? Who has enabled the ruthless father-son team to survive? The two countries who are responsible for having failed policies are China and South Korea. Why aren't they the focus of such discussions? If it weren't for them, that little nutjob would have been gone a decade ago. Now China and South Korea are going to reap what they sowed, unfortunately.
A "ruthless father-on team", are you talking about Il and his daddy, or DUBYA and his? I think they both qualify. Look, Il only tested his nuke because he knows we are presently steaming on our way to pick another fight in Iran. Il knows North Korea is part of the so-called Axis of Evil. He's seen what the madman DUBYA can do, and he wants no part of it.
Now that Il's got a nuke or three, DUBYA sure as hell is handling him with more gracious kid gloves. Now all of a sudden, the word, "diplomacy," seems to have found its way into DUBYA's lexicon. Why? Because at last, DUBYA's run into a madman that's at least as insane as himself.
Do I support Kim Jung Il? Of course I don't. He's a madman. There is no doubt about that in my mind. However, do I feel he has some justification for being worried given the state of the world because of the actions of DUBYA? If he isn't worried, he's even madder than I considered.
I feel it needs to be said that at least Kim Jung Il has proved one thing, DUBYA is only a pushy bully when he knows there is no real possibility the country he bullies will have enough power in their arsenal to bully back. Now that Il has a nuke, DUBYA has backed off the bullying rhetoric for which he is famous.
Now all of a sudden, we need to find a diplomatic solution. I bet Saddam is completely pissed because he didn't have those WMD's he was supposed to have. I know the president of Iran is wishing he could turn the clock ahead ten years so he could have at least one nuke at his disposal.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments)
on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 5:20:47 AM
... the labels Conservative, Liberal, etc. are useless without reference points. The Washington Post IS conservative compared to The Weekly Planet or the television show Democracy Now, but it is obviously Liberal compared to the New York Post.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:31:33 AM
There is about 100 miles of grey in between appeasement and
...defiantly ignoring someone or provoking them. Even James Baker is talking about how we can negotiate with North Korea click here .
Most of even the worst dictators can be contained if dealt with appropriately. The idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick seems to have been completely lost on people like you.
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:28:30 AM
"The idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick seems to have been completely lost on people like you."
Big sticks only work if, at some point, and for all to see, you really whack somebody with it. You pick the biggest bully, the instigator of wrongs, and you destroy them with it. Then there is peace for a while. Then you don't have to use your big stick for a long time and can speak softly. But then, at some point, unfortunately, the big stick will lose its power because it becomes obvious you are not prepared to use it so you have to really whack somebody again for all to see. And then you can speak softly for a long time again.
The important reality behind the big stick/speak softly approach.
by
DonMcKellar (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 10:57:28 AM
Yes, but it also becomes completely lost if you whack
... someone and your justification turns out to be a big fat lie. Then YOU become the aggressor nation who attacks without justification. That is the entire point
by
Steven Leser (228 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1647 comments)
on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 11:43:31 AM
"The idea of speaking softly and carrying a big stick seems to have been completely lost on people like you."
It has? Whom, may I ask, is speaking softly? If you are implying DUBYA, when did this happen? Did he not say, "bring them on," or did I not hear him correctly? "Bring them on," is not speaking softly. It's talking like some sorry parodied version of Rambo.
None of the rhetoric used by DUBYA in reference to Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran has been soft by any stretch of the imagination. It's all been hard-nosed and confrontational. So where exactly is that soft speaking?
Oh yeah, that's right, DUBYA's speaking softly now because North Korea has a nuke. Now, all of a sudden, the rhetoric cools a bit, and the word "diplomacy" has crept into his vocabulary. Why is this?
Because none of the other countries he bullied didn't amount to a real threat to us. Even given the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks, he was pretty confident that Al Qaeda didn't have nukes at their beckoned call. He knew that Saddam didn't have them, either. Therefore, he could afford to talk tough.
Now that he's faced with the reality of North Korean nukes, he's taming his words. Isn't that just like a bully? When they think they won't be opposed in their activities, they are as brave as can be. When they fear they will get their asses handed to them, then all of a sudden, they want to play nice.
So now perhaps DUBYA's speaking softly. It's not because he intends to use a big stick, it's because he's afraid Kim Jung Il might just be insane enough to use HIS big stick. Yeah, that's some foreign policy wizard there!
Big sticks only work if, at some point, and for all to see, you really whack somebody with it. You pick the biggest bully, the instigator of wrongs, and you destroy them with it. Then there is peace for a while. Then you don't have to use your big stick for a long time and can speak softly. But then, at some point, unfortunately, the big stick will lose its power because it becomes obvious you are not prepared to use it so you have to really whack somebody again for all to see. And then you can speak softly for a long time again.
So who was this big bully that DUBYA whacked? Was it Afghanistan or Iraq? Afghanistan was a cakewalk...well at least up to the point where they could have caught Osama bin Laden, then it was screw-up central. Now it appears the Taliban is back, and the profits from the opium fields are up. We didn't hit Afghanistan with a big stick. We hit them with a boxing glove, and did very little damage.
Was it Iraq? While it's true that Saddam was a ruthless dictator, and generally anything but a nice guy, I hardly think Iraq was bullying US. Oh sure, under DUBYA's dad, Saddam bullied Kuwait. Saddam also got his peepee whacked for that one. He also gassed the Kurds, but no one was there w
