genoyamamoto 0 #26 May 8, 2005 Quote...except for the fact that it's an interesting study, in a "1984" sort of way... Like "building 105" in DPRK and it's eerie resemblance to the "ministry of truth"? Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 May 9, 2005 QuoteThe official said there are indications of North Korea "digging holes and then filling them up with dirt" and that such activity is suggestive of underground test preparations. Fuck! Our local council have been doing that for years, I wondered what they were upto! Sneeky bastards!!! This is the great logical deductive thinking that brought us WMDs in Iraq! US IntelligenceWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #28 May 9, 2005 QuoteNK's desire to build nukes was brought to the attention of the clinton administration and Clinton, being the pussy he is, did nothing about it. He preferd to stick his head in the sand. Call me a bit uninformed, but despite my experience in this particular area, I'm having a hard time figuring out to what, exactly, you are referring; could you help me out a bit and fill me in? Links to references would also be tremendously helpful. Thanks! Steve Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #29 May 9, 2005 QuoteThe world is full of tyrannical leaders who don't give a shit about settling differences peacefully. What are you going to do about them? Reelect them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #30 May 9, 2005 QuoteReelect them? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! That made me laugh... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #31 May 9, 2005 QuoteThis is the great logical deductive thinking that brought us WMDs in Iraq! US Intelligence Don't worry man.. Last I knew NK doesn't have plans to light up any muslim countries.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KevinMcGuire 0 #32 May 9, 2005 What experience in this matter do you have? I was referring to a comment made by some one that implied that the current situation with NK is the result of the current administrations hard line approach when in fact is is the result of years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration. If you Google Clinton and North Korea, you'll have all the info you need Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,072 #33 May 9, 2005 >Last I knew NK doesn't have plans to light up any muslim countries.. They will, at which point we will sell them WMD's. Then we will bitch some more when we discover that they have them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #34 May 9, 2005 QuoteWhat experience in this matter do you have? In a previous life, I drank, ate, pissed, shit, and dreamed about little else than the Korean language and DPRK political and military matters. During the Yongbyon nuclear issue in 93-94, I was working in country (ROK) providing support to our (US) activity there. QuoteI was referring to a comment made by some one that implied that the current situation with NK is the result of the current administrations hard line approach when in fact is is the result of years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration. Issues of this nature have many causal factors -- trying to pinpoint it to just one grossly oversimplifies the issue. There are a number of causes to the current situation in the DPRK, some of which are small (but add up), whereas others are more significant. The latter is usually indicated by pivotal changes in climate or policy in response to the cause. Famine, fluctuating relations with China, and the rapidly growing need for economic policy change are all examples of recent contributors to the situation. If we really want to point fingers and find blame, we have our choice of innumerable related decisions or policies to scrutinize, hell, all the way back to the Truman administration's lack of foresight into pending (and forewarned) Chinese involvement in the Korean War. The argument that "the current administrations hard line approach" is the reason for the current situtation is without a doubt narrow and short sighted; however, one would be hard pressed to dispute the approach's role as one of the more significant current causal factors to the situation -- the DPRK is responding directly to current US rhetoric, policy, and actions. As far as "years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration [with regard to the DPRK]," I'm a bit lost. I mean, as much as I disapproved of his election and had little respect for him as a person (proven justified time and again), his administration's dealings with the DPRK didn't seem neglectful. Quite the contrary, actually. I mean, there was this crusty old crone who just happened to be US Secretary of State under Clinton when she made a historic visit to the DPRK and met with Kim Jong Il, capping a monumental, ongoing diplomatic effort in attempting to stabilize and normalize relations between the US and the difficult-to-deal-with-is-the-understatement-of-the-century DPRK. This effort was largely catalyzed by the earlier Yongbyon crisis, to which, as you may or may not know, the Clinton administration quickly responded with an aggressive, hard line posturing (I love that word) that skyrocketed tension on the peninsula. It wasn't quite Cuban Missile Crisis tension, but it was definitely along the same lines, only more localized. There wasn't much cowardice to go around at the time: it was pretty balls-to-the-wall. That aggressive response quickly led to a suddenly-diplomacy-sounds-real-good DPRK, which allowed for our favorite toothy peanut farmer to make some progress with the soon-to-be-dead Great Leader. Just how effective the followup DPRK policy was under Clinton is certainly debatable (too accommodating, etc.), as is almost any policy, but calling it "neglect and cowardice" just sounds too much like parroted silly emotional partisan rhetoric/propaganda. Feh. I'll agree, though, that the manner with which the Clinton administration dealt with the DPRK is certainly a contributing factor to the current situation, even if for no other reason (we all know there are more), by providing an environment with which the Bush administration's approach so sharply contrasts. QuoteIf you Google Clinton and North Korea, you'll have all the info you need Google Search: Clinton North Korea Curious readers beware: if the article's title somewhat resembles, "Clinton Submissively Licks Kim Jong Il's Balls," then you're probably in for, well, a sorta biased perspective (just as if the titles were similar to, "Bush Succeeds Marilyn Manson as Anti-Christ Superstar"). Please people, don't blindly believe everything you read; think of the kittens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #35 May 9, 2005 This kind of reasonable analytic behaviour should get you banned from the Speaker's Corner forum. For life. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #36 May 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteNK's desire to build nukes was brought to the attention of the clinton administration and Clinton, being the pussy he is, did nothing about it. He preferd to stick his head in the sand. Call me a bit uninformed, but despite my experience in this particular area, I'm having a hard time figuring out to what, exactly, you are referring; could you help me out a bit and fill me in? Links to references would also be tremendously helpful. This is not actually true, Bill Clinton entered into a aid agreement where the US supplied NK with aid in exchange for ceasing all enrichment and warhead development. Years later the NK government pretty much announced to the Bush administration (initially only through diplomatic channels) that they'd been working on nukes all along and had a couple or were about to have enough material for a couple of nukes (the story varied). This was their insane attempt at brinkmanship to try to get the US to give more aid. It prompted Bush's hard stance on multilateral talks NK who insisted on billateral talks with the USA (deep pockets) presumably because it worked for them the last time, unfortunately for them it proved spectacularly unsuccessful for the U.S. given that they went ahead and developed their nukes anyway. So here we are today, trying to get NK's good neighbours to force them to play nice. The right wing nuts claim Clinton was duped/hoodwinked, but that's a bit unkind, although Kerry's professed willingness to jump back into a billateral deal does tarnish the left on this, but it's more a case of anything that defined a position different from Bush. IMHO bending over on NK nuke billateral diplomacy for Pyongyang in the TV debate was the worst think Kerry did. From what I've read there was some apparent cross administration complicity in the state department trying to give NK the benefit of the doubt for years even when non proliferation inspectors were turning up violations. Probably trying to keep the deal alive at all costs with a solid helping of wishful thinking. This bubble finally burst big time when NK flat out admitted they'd been cheating. What happens next is anyone's guess. I predict a bad outcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #37 May 9, 2005 DPRK is a desperate nation headed by a leader who's as mentally stable as Woody Woodpecker. I'm just glad to be getting out of the Military before I get sent to SK to get gassed or nuked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #38 May 9, 2005 Oh my! They're trying to get the same weapons we have! The nerve of some countries!! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #39 May 9, 2005 QuoteOh my! They're trying to get the same weapons we have! The nerve of some countries!! There are multiple ancillary issues that make this particularly worrying. If this was New Zeland or some such place then frankly I wouldn't lose sleep, but alas it ain't NZ it's NK. Maybe we can cut a package deal with China, let them take Taiwan if they promise to invade NK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #40 May 10, 2005 Quote Maybe if we just try being nicer and give them what they want, they will like us and then the world can live as one. That's what you did with Saddam! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #41 May 10, 2005 Yea and I'm sure they can sleep soundly in thier beds at night knowing that they have nukes and no oil!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #42 May 10, 2005 QuoteQuote Maybe if we just try being nicer and give them what they want, they will like us and then the world can live as one. That's what you did with Saddam! t Yep, and it will work just as well with Kim Jong Il as it did with Saddam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Alias 0 #43 May 10, 2005 If it turns out that North Korea did not cheat after all, the prospects for a new denuclearization agreement would improve, because the Bush administration could no longer argue that Pyongyang is an inherently untrustworthy negotiating partner. At any rate, to break the diplomatic deadlock, the United States urgently needs a new strategy. Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vmsfreaky1 0 #44 May 11, 2005 Quotefor the fact that it's an interesting study, in a "1984" sort of way... Really? I find the U.S.A to be more of an accurate study, in a 1984 kinda way... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 03CLS 0 #45 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteto bad we wasted so much time, energy and lives on a country that wasnt actually a threat...but i guess thats what happens when your leadership only sees what they wish to see.... Don't worry. This time we'll just sit back and wait for Seoul or Tokyo to become a ball of fire and light. Then we'll ask the liberals what they want to do about it. Dam conversatives or should I say republicans can't even admit Bush was wrong on the Iraqi thing. Bush here: I'm going down with the ship what are you going to do? Conversatives: Whatever you do because your always right unlike the dummycrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rhino 0 #31 May 9, 2005 QuoteThis is the great logical deductive thinking that brought us WMDs in Iraq! US Intelligence Don't worry man.. Last I knew NK doesn't have plans to light up any muslim countries.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevinMcGuire 0 #32 May 9, 2005 What experience in this matter do you have? I was referring to a comment made by some one that implied that the current situation with NK is the result of the current administrations hard line approach when in fact is is the result of years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration. If you Google Clinton and North Korea, you'll have all the info you need Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #33 May 9, 2005 >Last I knew NK doesn't have plans to light up any muslim countries.. They will, at which point we will sell them WMD's. Then we will bitch some more when we discover that they have them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #34 May 9, 2005 QuoteWhat experience in this matter do you have? In a previous life, I drank, ate, pissed, shit, and dreamed about little else than the Korean language and DPRK political and military matters. During the Yongbyon nuclear issue in 93-94, I was working in country (ROK) providing support to our (US) activity there. QuoteI was referring to a comment made by some one that implied that the current situation with NK is the result of the current administrations hard line approach when in fact is is the result of years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration. Issues of this nature have many causal factors -- trying to pinpoint it to just one grossly oversimplifies the issue. There are a number of causes to the current situation in the DPRK, some of which are small (but add up), whereas others are more significant. The latter is usually indicated by pivotal changes in climate or policy in response to the cause. Famine, fluctuating relations with China, and the rapidly growing need for economic policy change are all examples of recent contributors to the situation. If we really want to point fingers and find blame, we have our choice of innumerable related decisions or policies to scrutinize, hell, all the way back to the Truman administration's lack of foresight into pending (and forewarned) Chinese involvement in the Korean War. The argument that "the current administrations hard line approach" is the reason for the current situtation is without a doubt narrow and short sighted; however, one would be hard pressed to dispute the approach's role as one of the more significant current causal factors to the situation -- the DPRK is responding directly to current US rhetoric, policy, and actions. As far as "years of neglect and cowardice on the part of the clinton administration [with regard to the DPRK]," I'm a bit lost. I mean, as much as I disapproved of his election and had little respect for him as a person (proven justified time and again), his administration's dealings with the DPRK didn't seem neglectful. Quite the contrary, actually. I mean, there was this crusty old crone who just happened to be US Secretary of State under Clinton when she made a historic visit to the DPRK and met with Kim Jong Il, capping a monumental, ongoing diplomatic effort in attempting to stabilize and normalize relations between the US and the difficult-to-deal-with-is-the-understatement-of-the-century DPRK. This effort was largely catalyzed by the earlier Yongbyon crisis, to which, as you may or may not know, the Clinton administration quickly responded with an aggressive, hard line posturing (I love that word) that skyrocketed tension on the peninsula. It wasn't quite Cuban Missile Crisis tension, but it was definitely along the same lines, only more localized. There wasn't much cowardice to go around at the time: it was pretty balls-to-the-wall. That aggressive response quickly led to a suddenly-diplomacy-sounds-real-good DPRK, which allowed for our favorite toothy peanut farmer to make some progress with the soon-to-be-dead Great Leader. Just how effective the followup DPRK policy was under Clinton is certainly debatable (too accommodating, etc.), as is almost any policy, but calling it "neglect and cowardice" just sounds too much like parroted silly emotional partisan rhetoric/propaganda. Feh. I'll agree, though, that the manner with which the Clinton administration dealt with the DPRK is certainly a contributing factor to the current situation, even if for no other reason (we all know there are more), by providing an environment with which the Bush administration's approach so sharply contrasts. QuoteIf you Google Clinton and North Korea, you'll have all the info you need Google Search: Clinton North Korea Curious readers beware: if the article's title somewhat resembles, "Clinton Submissively Licks Kim Jong Il's Balls," then you're probably in for, well, a sorta biased perspective (just as if the titles were similar to, "Bush Succeeds Marilyn Manson as Anti-Christ Superstar"). Please people, don't blindly believe everything you read; think of the kittens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #35 May 9, 2005 This kind of reasonable analytic behaviour should get you banned from the Speaker's Corner forum. For life. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #36 May 9, 2005 QuoteQuoteNK's desire to build nukes was brought to the attention of the clinton administration and Clinton, being the pussy he is, did nothing about it. He preferd to stick his head in the sand. Call me a bit uninformed, but despite my experience in this particular area, I'm having a hard time figuring out to what, exactly, you are referring; could you help me out a bit and fill me in? Links to references would also be tremendously helpful. This is not actually true, Bill Clinton entered into a aid agreement where the US supplied NK with aid in exchange for ceasing all enrichment and warhead development. Years later the NK government pretty much announced to the Bush administration (initially only through diplomatic channels) that they'd been working on nukes all along and had a couple or were about to have enough material for a couple of nukes (the story varied). This was their insane attempt at brinkmanship to try to get the US to give more aid. It prompted Bush's hard stance on multilateral talks NK who insisted on billateral talks with the USA (deep pockets) presumably because it worked for them the last time, unfortunately for them it proved spectacularly unsuccessful for the U.S. given that they went ahead and developed their nukes anyway. So here we are today, trying to get NK's good neighbours to force them to play nice. The right wing nuts claim Clinton was duped/hoodwinked, but that's a bit unkind, although Kerry's professed willingness to jump back into a billateral deal does tarnish the left on this, but it's more a case of anything that defined a position different from Bush. IMHO bending over on NK nuke billateral diplomacy for Pyongyang in the TV debate was the worst think Kerry did. From what I've read there was some apparent cross administration complicity in the state department trying to give NK the benefit of the doubt for years even when non proliferation inspectors were turning up violations. Probably trying to keep the deal alive at all costs with a solid helping of wishful thinking. This bubble finally burst big time when NK flat out admitted they'd been cheating. What happens next is anyone's guess. I predict a bad outcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #37 May 9, 2005 DPRK is a desperate nation headed by a leader who's as mentally stable as Woody Woodpecker. I'm just glad to be getting out of the Military before I get sent to SK to get gassed or nuked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #38 May 9, 2005 Oh my! They're trying to get the same weapons we have! The nerve of some countries!! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 May 9, 2005 QuoteOh my! They're trying to get the same weapons we have! The nerve of some countries!! There are multiple ancillary issues that make this particularly worrying. If this was New Zeland or some such place then frankly I wouldn't lose sleep, but alas it ain't NZ it's NK. Maybe we can cut a package deal with China, let them take Taiwan if they promise to invade NK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #40 May 10, 2005 Quote Maybe if we just try being nicer and give them what they want, they will like us and then the world can live as one. That's what you did with Saddam! tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #41 May 10, 2005 Yea and I'm sure they can sleep soundly in thier beds at night knowing that they have nukes and no oil!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #42 May 10, 2005 QuoteQuote Maybe if we just try being nicer and give them what they want, they will like us and then the world can live as one. That's what you did with Saddam! t Yep, and it will work just as well with Kim Jong Il as it did with Saddam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #43 May 10, 2005 If it turns out that North Korea did not cheat after all, the prospects for a new denuclearization agreement would improve, because the Bush administration could no longer argue that Pyongyang is an inherently untrustworthy negotiating partner. At any rate, to break the diplomatic deadlock, the United States urgently needs a new strategy. Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #44 May 11, 2005 Quotefor the fact that it's an interesting study, in a "1984" sort of way... Really? I find the U.S.A to be more of an accurate study, in a 1984 kinda way... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
03CLS 0 #45 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteto bad we wasted so much time, energy and lives on a country that wasnt actually a threat...but i guess thats what happens when your leadership only sees what they wish to see.... Don't worry. This time we'll just sit back and wait for Seoul or Tokyo to become a ball of fire and light. Then we'll ask the liberals what they want to do about it. Dam conversatives or should I say republicans can't even admit Bush was wrong on the Iraqi thing. Bush here: I'm going down with the ship what are you going to do? Conversatives: Whatever you do because your always right unlike the dummycrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
