Reports out of Beijing suggest the six-party talks have finally lead to a deal of some sort. Said the South Korean envoy:
“There was an agreement on the key differences of North Korea’s actions for denuclearisation, their scope and how far they’ll go, and the other countries’ corresponding measures and the scale of assistance,” South Korean envoy Chun Yung-woo told reporters.
“North Korea basically agreed to all the measures in the draft.”
I guess we’ll have to wait and see, although former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton already dislikes it:
Some criticism has already started, with John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the North should not be rewarded with “massive shipments of heavy fuel oil” for only partially dismantling its program.
“It sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world,” Bolton told CNN.
I stopped caring about North Korea a long, long time ago.
{ 7 trackbacks }
{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }
How many times now have you told us you no longer care about NK? You do not want to sound like the guy who tells everyone he no longer cares about some ex-girlfriend a little too often (especially while commenting on what she is up to).
Anyhow, what is the over/under on when this deal gets broken? (Bets can include figures from all number sets, including numbers irrational and unreal).
There will surely be a lot of whistling past the graveyard, complete silence, and “North Korea? I don’t care about North Korea” statements coming from the right in the following weeks and months.
This having to do with the fact that the backseat foreign-policy drivers have laughed at, criticized, and vilified Clinton and his deal with the North Koreans over the last decade. This criticism predicated on the fact that when they got in power, they would show North Korea who was really in control, and they wouldn’t pay the Norks off with bribes like the Clintonistas loved to dole out.
So they got their chance and look what happened. Same old bullshit. All that tough talk and swagger, with statements like these:
“We will not reward North Korea for coming into compliance with past obligations.”
“It is vital that North Korea understand that they will not be rewarded for cheating on the previous Framework Agreement.”
“The only acceptable deal is one which guarantees a complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantling of their entire nuclear program. Anything less, including aid for a simple freeze, is unacceptable.”
“We will not even discuss any aid packages until AFTER North Korea has taken several verifiable steps.”
In order to fall for the same old North Korean bullshit promises again (after spending a decade criticizing Clinton for doing just that), the current administration must be blindly desperate for any kind of foreign policy “victory” to take the focus off of Iraq. And quite a victory this is. Paying them for a useless fucking freeze. Yeehaw.
This is absolute, complete capitulation and appeasement. And given their past tough-stand statements that they’ve now completely backed away from, it will be interesting to see how this pile of shit is sold to the hard-line conservatives who now look like utter fools.
Just goes to show that the current crop of dipshits in Washington didn’t learn a goddamn thing from the last crop of dipshits in Washington, in spite of the solid decade of shit-talking in which they claimed they did.
Given your previous criticisms of South Korea feeding a lifeline to the Norks Robert, it is amusing to see you suddenly not care that your own government is eager to join that crowd and start feeding their own lifeline to Kim Jong Il and his cabal. Your taxes going to support the gulags, in other words. Ah, who cares. As long as it’s Republicans doing it and not those appeasement-monkey libruls.
Blow me. That’s precisely the reason I don’t give a shit anymore—it doesn’t matter who’s in power, it’s the same old bullshit. North Korea extorts, we give. Nobody has the balls to simply tell Pyongyang to take a flying leap. Nothing ever changes, which is why the North Koreans win every single goddamned time.
Here we are fighting in Iraq, a country that was no threat to the US, and was not proliferating weapons to terrorists. Reminds me of what Churchill is said to have declared – “I am afraid we killed the wrong pig!”.
I’ll politely decline your offer of oral sex.
So apparently “I guess we’ll have to wait and see…” was your way of saying that this is a horrible deal and the Bush administration is continuing the appeasement/bribery policy and giving North Korea yet another negotiating victory.
I apologize. I’m clearly an idiot for not reading between the lines and catching your true intent.
Why even make this kind of halfass “deal” in the first place? Keep the sanctions, add new ones. If they start to set up another nuke test, bomb the site–surely that would merit military action as opposed to Iran’s several-years-away nuclear capability.
The Bush administration is giving in a little too easily here and it does smell like a faux foreign policy “victory, sorry to say.
I haven’t a clue.
The only positive spin I can put on this is we’ll have to wait to see if there has even been a deal made. Or, for that matter, whether any “deal” gets approved, or even if a deal gets approved by everyone at the table, how long it lasts before someone starts hedging their bets and sinks the whole thing. Aside from that, I see no reason at all to call this a foreign policy “victory,” although the White House will no doubt call it one.
I guess another positive note is that at least when the Iranians look at whatever deal we gave Pyongyang and start demanding something similar, I doubt they’ll be asking for heavy oil.
“…This is absolute, complete capitulation and appeasement…”
My goodness, before you pronounce the current administration as “Clintonistas” redux, at least wait to see if the fuel oil actually gets unloaded in DPRK ports, and if Condoleeza shows up in Pyongyang at the shrine to the Great Leader, wearing a stylish hat and raising a toast with the Dear Leader, etc. etc.
If this happens, and then the North Koreans go into their normal “stiff-arm” routine, your observations (though not your tone) may be justified. But as best I can tell from the article, this hasn’t happened yet.
Bush isn’t running for re-election, any more than Clinton was in his second term when he sent Albright to DPRK. I think there was one motivation Clinton had which is definitely lacking in Bush — an all-consuming lust to win a Nobel peace prize for a “deal” with DPRK, as a historical legacy especially desirable after the impeachment became a historical fact.
Leave aside the Dem/Repub distinction for a moment. What exactly do you want a “generic” American administration to do vs a vs DPRK, iheart?
I can’t imagine your tone being any more apocalyptic if the linked news article stated that Bush had just come on TV to announce the total failure of the 6 party talks and that as a consequence US bombers were now on their way to take out all known DPRK nuclear weapons storage sites and nuclear reactors.
The deal sounds like 1994 all over again, as if no one learned a thing. For some reason Iran merits sending a battle fleet off to the Gulf while N.K. gets a slap on the wrist for actually declaring it has nukes. I don’t get it.
The White House must claim a victory. If the talks fail Nancy Pelosi will wag her anti-Bush Dildo at the whole administration. No solutions, only criticism. We need to starve them out. No oil, no reactor.
I think we are all in violent agreement here, to be honest. Apparently, any modern US administration, particularly in its legacy-seeking second term, is incapable of acting on principle. Acting on principle means (a) effecting policies based on long-term calculation and national self-interest (b) having the courage and moral certainty to carry through on stances unpopular with media editorial boards (c) having and acting on a coherent vision that transcends the next news cycle.
Bush has a vision, but he can’t articulate it and it’s wrong for the country anyway. Clinton had no vision and could articulate that in detail. And that was wrong for the country too.
fred_random,
I will ask you the same question, if given the chance to Nancy Pelosi. What would your vision look like?
railwaycharm, I am assuming that a word was missing in your question (likely “advise” or “be”), unless “to Nancy Pelosi” is a new verb form.
My vision is pretty simple, similar to the Marmot’s and not original with me: state unequivocally and *publicly* that (a)our foreign policy is about our national self-interest, and our defense policy is about protecting the lives, freedom and property of Americans (b) we will back it up with any and all necessary actions, including force (c) that this is, in fact, moral and (d) we will stick to these principles over multiple years and multiple elections.
No wars in Iraq for “Iraqi Freedom,” no comments from the President about Venezuelan nationalization policies causing concern “for the Venezuelan people” (as Bush recently said). No sending troops to Haiti, Somalia or Serbia unless US lives or property are under threat. No hiding behind the dubious moral cover of the UN. No fear of being “unilateralist.” Simply make firm statements, be consistent and back them up. Disagreements with other nations need not lead to military action — a strong statement of US moral support for protesting Iranian students, for example, may be enough to emasculate that government. However, we have to be willing to follow up our statements with quick and decisive action. And, in the case of military action, we’d only have to do it once to make the point.
It would be nice to see this stated in a speech to the nation, preferably by someone like Cheney instead of Bush. Due to a total lack of moral courage and a thick streak of Pragmatism in US politics today, I don’t see it happening.
And, no, Nancy Pelosi isn’t likely to say any of this either. The only folks saying this in the US, at the Ayn Rand Institute, to my knowledge. They have a nice booklet on morality and proper foreign policy.
shakuhachi,
Iraq has oil. The end of discussion. (Or, the end of comparison?)
For anti-American Koreans,
Shouldn’t this be the time Koreans rise up against American selling them out? Shouldn’t they be saying “we are not going to supply our enemy with oil, which can be used against us”? Koreans should shoot its own missles to suspected NK nuke sites. Hooray, Koreans!
For fellow Americans,
OkeyDokey, North Korean crisis(was it ever a crisis?) is over. Time to concentrate on attacking Iran and put Homani to the grave. The US must solve the real problem – upcoming oil shortage. Go take over Iran. Obama and Hilary can suck their shoes.
Time to solve the real problem. Attack Iran!
And before anyone asks…
The US should state that NK’s government is an ongoing threat to the US, its allies and the region, due to its ideology and actions; any negotiation with its government confers legitimacy on that government and is equivalent to appeasement; threats of force against the US will be treated as seriously as warranted by our estimates of their capability to carry them out; any actions against the US will be met with disproportionate and overwhelming retaliation. We would be willing to coordinate actions for maximum effect with any regional governments who share these views.
/wjk multi-post mode off
Korea should refuse to supply heavy oil to North Korea. These oils will be used by NK tanks and air plane when it attacks the South.
What a stupid nation! Supplying enemy with money and now with oil. Just as well decrease troop strength and spread the enemy is no longer the enemy. (Oooop, they are already doing that!)
What a stupid nation!
NK can keep their nukes and still get oils from the South. Maybe Kim Ilsung and Kim Jongil are the smartest Koreans ever born. Heil, Kims.
South Korea can only produce Kim DaeJung and Rho MuHyen who are so happy that the six-duds meeting have produce some results. Stupid Koreans are celebrating this. Fools die.
yeap its all bush’s fault hes to blame and it seems some are jumping the gun on this report.
nothing was said about what the deal actually is?
the japs are non-comitted at this point and if it goes to far i know bush will not agree
That’s beautiful Fred. I agree 100%.
Perhaps restate it without using so many 5-dollar words and even George Bush might be able to grasp that which should be so obvious to every American.
There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip. I’ll believe they have a real agreement when the Fat Boy sings. Preferably “I”m so Ronery”.
I’m curious. Who’s going to provide the electricity that was promissed to North Korea? Who will pay for it?
fred_random, Thanks. I agree with most of your vision. I do think we have work to accomplish in Iraq. We need stability in the Middle East and Iraq is a great place to start. It is true that oil plays a big factor. Bush is too weak on this note; I would take every last drop until the total bill is paid.
Fred, Dogbert, Random, et al:
Let’s roll.
“My vision is pretty simple, similar to the Marmot’s and not original with me: state unequivocally and *publicly* that (a)our foreign policy is about our national self-interest, and our defense policy is about protecting the lives, freedom and property of Americans (b) we will back it up with any and all necessary actions, including force (c) that this is, in fact, moral and (d) we will stick to these principles over multiple years and multiple elections.
That’s beautiful Fred. I agree 100%.”
Hey, dogbert, we both agree on something.
Fred_random, well put. The US should look after its own interests first and foremost.
This appeasement is a farce. We already have more than enough troops on the ground in South Korea (nearly 30,000) to send in to North Korea after a couple of weeks of bombing the Snork military back to dixie with stealth planes and cookie cutters. The Corean population will string Kim jong-il and his elk up so they die slowly, and then establish a democratic interim government, establish ties with the US and other countries of freedom, join the WTO and allow atomic inspectors, with unification with the South to follow a few months later.
Bush seems to be on the run ahead of the election next year and not seeing the reality of what is possible. Pussy-whipped agreements have no place in real politics, we need to carry a big stick and tread softly, like we are in Iraq.
after reading the orgy of violence taking place here, i feel so thankful these ‘necks ain’t running the show and that their neo con proxies in the white house are having their ideology exposed as so much dribble. don’t you love how they talk tough all comfy in seoul?
1. north korea doesn’t have anything we want. nk sits right smack in the middle of three of the lrgest economies in the word. that’s why north korea was never attacked.
2. that the bush admin is basically doing a clinton demonstrates bush is the orgin of sour relations with south korea.
3. moral right? moral right to attack just about anyone? do i have that right? uh, could you come out of your cave? can i ask you something? did the united states under the helm of bush have the moral right to bring about the deaths of hundreds if not millions of iraqis? people need to be very afraid of people who convince themselves they have a moral right to kill others. this kind of person is no different than a terrorist. careful, caveman, you might just get us all killed.
4. it’s interesting; the expat tells me i have no idea what i am talking about but i was right about iraq, and now, i am right about north korea. marmot, on the other hand, is a man with the wrong politics. so many of you cowboys supported bush’s war on iraq, i just wish just once we could see one of you admit you were wrong. alas, the caveman never apologizes. it’s not his blood.
5. now south korea can go about setting up the needed infrastructure of a united korean nation without the boo hoo ba ha from the bush people.
6. expat wrong yet again. ahahahahahahahahahahaha!
7. people i admire: bill clinton, al gore, barbara jordan, al sharpton, Dr King, al franken, nancy pelosi, bruce cummings, Park Chung Hee.
The inestimable Haisan called for an over/under. I say the Norks scupper this by July 4th.
buy low, sell high. every time the saber rattles and stocks drop-buy. when we get these “deals” we know stocks will generally rise. that’s the only positive i see these days. on the whole, it’s bullshit as usual…
I’m not sure why everyone is making a big deal of this “deal,” since it’s “tentative” and not even final yet. Even if North Korea accepts these terms, it’s likely to renege on them later. It doesn’t even address the nukes or uranium program, so there will be those two hurdles later; multiple points of failure.
Why is the Bush administration doing this? It’s a faux victory to be sure, but it makes it appear as if some “progress” has been made. It’s all bullshit. And don’t anyone try to say how much better Clinton was doing; the Clinton administration ignored the intel about the uranium program in 1997-8, essentially sweeping it under the rug for the next guy. Well, the next guy did deal with that issue.
Rather that pushing for this sort of deal, the U.S. should push harder for getting South Korea and China on board with a strangulation policy. If the U.S. had to assure China that not U.S. bases would be relocated about the 38th (carrot), and threaten some limits on access to U.S. markets (stick), such a policy would have a better chance. But that would have the chance of costing the U.S. a (little) bit, and take some balls to carry out.
Anyway, this “deal” isn’t in stone, so I don’t see the need to get too excited just yet.
Pawi,
Tell me. How many Korean soldiers are in Iraq/have been in Iraq? Thousands, right? How many Canadian soldiers are/have been there since 2003?
that road’s been closed.
7. people i admire: bill clinton, al gore, barbara jordan, al sharpton, Dr King, al franken, nancy pelosi, bruce cummings, Park Chung Hee.
I think he threw the Parkster in there for effect. I can not figure out if Pawi is a put-on or he truly rode the small bus to school? Pawi, are you sporting diapers?
Can’t predict what the long term results of the deal will be, but it seems like a good way out for everybody involved at the moment. I would have been fine with giving the North an indefinite “time out”, but a deal beats the outside chance of a needless war going down in my neck of the woods. Deal or no deal, things will only change once the fat man with the bad hair and platforms exits.
And, for those out there seeking a less-than-well-thought out military solution – either with the North or the Iranians – that type of action hasn’t been a terribly big success of late. (Even in Afghanistan, where the invasion absolutely was justified, I have a bad feeling that there isn’t going to be a happy ending either.) Not only has Iraq proved to be a great model for how to fuck up a country – not just replace a regime, grow democracy, find imaginary WMD, fight terrorists, or whatever the supposed rationale for 3100 American and tens of thousands of other (mainly Iraqi) lives (and counting!) is these days – but extracation (with honor or without) is proving to be nothing short of a nightmare. I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the intention, but careful what you wish for…
Finally, John Bolton is hardly one to lecture anybody on sending the “wrong signal” when it comes to diplomacy. Consistently alienating friends and foes alike was arguably not in the national interest of the US. Seems like Gates and others are working to repair some of the damage caused over the last few years. I wish them all the success in the world.
As loathe as I am to see the North Korean regime be given a lifeline, really, what was the alternative? Sanctions failed with Saddam and even if they did work, a deteriorating DPRK only spells danger for the region. A nuclear armed belligerent North offered similar instability.
Tough talk was always going to be hollow. Given the global overreach of US and allied forces, who could give teeth to the threats? And whilst from a purely moral standpoint there is so much wrong with this deal, its the best outcome under the circumstances. I’m sure Brendon Carr will pop by, get his plus-sized panties into a bunch and explain to those of similar viewpoint to myself that we live in cloud cuckoo land as he scratches the sand from his snatch, but I’m at pains to see what the alternatives exist.
That being said, caveats exist, the assent of the administration and the adherence of the Norks make this far from a done deal.
What exactly is nulji claiming to be right about here?
P.S, purely strategic considerations aside, I can see no reason why a government less gullible than that of Roh could not tie other humanitarian aid to an improvement in human rights.
I think nulji is claiming to be right about the war in Iraq being a mistake. I agree with him on that one – although apparently in his mind “the expat” (all expats?) doesn’t – but it doesn’t exactly give me a raging boner to see Iraq go to shit and the international image of the US go down the toilet. Really depresses me actually. Nothing to “ha ha ha” about. As for the origin of America’s poor relations with South Korea these days, there’s plenty of blame to be shared on that one.
First, show us a link that says you were against the invasion of Iraq before it started, dated March 20th 2003 or before.
Second, not all the ‘expats’, ‘cowboys’, or ‘cavemen’ agreed with the invasion. I remember that it was quite a contentious issue, and people were divided about it. I was against it though, and I am on record. In fact I wrote -
Anyway, put up your link or shut up. You make up so many fake quotes you do not have any credibility unless you show proof.
Do you all recall how the American public was lied to by the media regarding the Tet offensive? We have the enemy on the ropes however; we lost the war in the media. This is exactly what Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her cowardice friends want us all to believe. Regardless of all the doom and gloom, life is improving for Iraq’s peoples. I personally would rather see the war where it belongs, in the Middle East. Next project, Iran!
had
What happened to the Lost Nomad?
Shame on you if you could, but chose not to, attend BR Myers’ RAS lecture tonight. About a hundred people showed up. Articulate, controversial and original — one of the longest, best illustrated and erudite lectures we have had for some time. Brian Myers was as engaging in person as his essays. What he had to say tonight may have provided insight on how serious to take this event.
Incidentally, today I had overlooked in the Opinion section of the International Herald Tribune their printing my letter. Dang! I love their copy editor! It’s great to see my ham handed prose fine tuned, if only for brevity, as follows:
North Korea’s ‘weak hand’
Feb. 12, 2007
Regarding the article “Some hope on North Korea talks,” (Feb. 8): One would conclude that all six parties now have their own, cynical motives to make the talks succeed. The only remaining monkey wrench is North Korea’s insecurity in facing the prospect of change resulting from successful talks.
Any change in the status quo presents the possibility of setting into motion an unforeseen series of domestic events in North Korea that may lead to the toppling of the current regime.
North Korea’s negotiators have been masterful in playing a weak hand, but there is something to be said for negotiating from a position with very few options. The other players have more options and can waffle, whereas the weak player must hang exceptionally tough in his narrow position and thereby force the others to cave in by attrition.
Unfortunately, this is more likely to happen than a breakthrough.
Tom Coyner, Seoul
(I admit it. I’m shameless in my attempts to get my name into print.)
Finally, regarding this blog’s referred to “breakthrough” story du jour, in time, my above letter may be proven to be right or to be wrong — or perhaps proven to be right for the wrong reasons. The immediate question is how long — or short — will tonight’s announced agreement last before there is a N Korean reversal based on their interpretation or discovery of “insincerity” on Japan or America’s part.
As always, I hope I’m wrong about my cynicism. But if I was in State, I would set my diplomatic stopwatch to just about now. The only reason why this time there may not be a sudden reversal is that so much of the agreement is based on significant aide in exchange for closing down Yongbyon — without realistic means to confirm whether the nuke program has been shifted to another location.
It reminds me of the pea and shell game, with the rubes paying up to play — win or lose. Guess who usually wins.
Jesus, is this going to be about Iraq now? Back to the Norks: As Prof. Myers so aptly pointed out, you can’t negotiate with children.
Tom: Prof. Myers was a tour de force. Brilliant analysis on KIS and KJI as mother figures and the tie in to Japanese wartime propaganda.
Consider this ploy:
NK declares victory over the aggression of America and bolsters its internal supporters and spies by negotiating a deal through the six nation deal.
NK continues with its subversive activities in South Korea, further gaining influence in vital sectors of business (broadcasting, news content, etc.) as demonstrated by the recent arrest of spies.
NK demands and gets substantial aid from SK, which will have a negative economic impact upon the SK economy since — as the current Minister of Unification has said — large amounts of aid should be rendered to NK.
NK and its operative orchestrate economic unrest in SK in an attempt to create social unrest and dissatisfaction while insinuating the meme of a unified Korea as being a economically and socially stronger Korea.
Employing the last situation, pro-NK elements and nationalists will press for an economic solution to SK’s economic difficulties through unification.
After long sessions of bargaining, unification occurs with both SK and NK declaring victory and a very new and different country emerges that is quite different from the SK we know today and the suffering continues in an uniquely Korean style.
The only caveat is this can occur if China does not cause a war through miscalculation.
SomeguyinKorea wrote:
Pawi,
Tell me. How many Korean soldiers are in Iraq/have been in Iraq? Thousands, right? How many Canadian soldiers are/have been there since 2003?”
-Shit, is Pawi holding a Canadian passport he spits on every day as a gesture of faith to the Korean motherland? Anyhow, someguy, Canada in a rare moment of brains decided that Iraq was going to be a horrible, unwinnable, bloody, started-by-a-drunk-Republican-mouthbreather treasury-draining quagmire and that we didn’t want to be involved. Two points for us. You have gained no points, and god help your souls.
We did, however, step up for the Afghan mission, and fight like fuck there every day. When not fighting Afghani’s to revenge 9/11, we get bombed and murdered by American pilots, following the long American tradition of slaughtering allies through not giving much of a shit where you are shooting, but we are too nice/resigned-to-how-you-are to complain. It’s sort of typical of Republican ideologists to slam allies….had tea with Rumsfield lately, someguy?…although it’s a bonehead thing to do, kicking the people helping you.
Railwaycharm said:
“Do you all recall how the American public was lied to by the media regarding the Tet offensive? We had the enemy on the ropes however; we lost the war in the media.”
Yes, America was bounding to victory in Vietnam, 1969, and the nefarious media and traitorous Democratic Party stabbed the Volk in the back. There’s just no need for this nonsense. All you have to say is that Democrats Kennedy and Johnson fucked the whole situation up, and Nixon was in charge of cleaning up the unwinnable mess. He cleaned it up in a long and bloodthirsty manner, but he never started the Vietnam war after all. Railwaycharm, Vietnam was an unwinnable colonial war – read your Barbara Tuchman and get edumacated.
North Korea can be bought, as this case shows. Can you buy out the fanatics in the Middle East? The answer is clearly no.
By the way, I disagree with rewarding them for having made a nuke. Seems like things went a lot faster after China decided it was time to proceed. Scary and disturbing.
“North Korea can be bought, as this case shows.”
A small degree of moderate North Korean behavior can, at best, be rented for a short while, at best. History shows the DPRK will renege and/or try to rewrite the deal.
Since there is a certain tendency to conflate Iraq with North Korea, may I suggest the following:
NK gets what it badly needs which is food, oil, and energy. NK, while poor in these regards, is rich in military manpower. The US strikes an agreement with NK to spare a few divisions to help out with the situation in Iraq. Several hundred thousand NK soldiers will bring things under control and accomplish in Iraq in a few months what the US expeditionary forces could not in 4 years.
bluejives, you’re suggesting that North Korea pull a Lt. Okamoto.
No good. No good for the people of North Korea, that is. Because, Kim Jong Il is not Lt. Okamoto. You might see Kim and his sons become obese beyond human physiology.
Might set a new Guiness World record.
A lot of ugly, fat kids will be born, evidently having some genetic traces of their hot looking mothers.
As to your questioning of heart and ability of the US military being inferior to that of the North Koreans, I think that is off, too. Although North Koreans don’t have to deal with the home war from cowards and liberals. I think the US military casualty and injury is remarkably low compared to all other past wars.
WMD’s. They’re sitting in Syria. I’d bet my favorite finger that this will be revealed in 2 decades.
China did the heavy lifting for North Korea in 1950-53 once the North Korean surprise attack was reversed. Although they have killed a lot of civilians in South and North Korea since, we don’t have a lot of evidence of a North Korean military track record against ARMED adversaries. Plus there would be risks to the Kim regime in having thousands of young North Koreans see a modern, free and civilized country — like Iraq.
50,000 tons? Los Angeles goes through that in an afternoon.
N.Korea has got it again!
http://joongangdaily.joins.com.....id=2872440
who said the norks had a strong military army? They dont even need it. they have south korea as 인질, which will feed them and protect them for thousands of years to come. The ‘agreement’ reached today shows just that
by the way, what the others above have feared is already happening.
http://news.chosun.com/site/da.....00049.html
North Korea, argues it was awarded the oil for only temporarily freezing the nuke facilities.
We’ve been witnessing this BS since 1994. You can say even earlier than that if you count any kind of negotiations we had with the f&8kers. I am perhaps the biggest anti-Bush person in this mostly scarsborough county commentator section. But you can not attack Bush on this. In fact, I rarely fault Bush on DPRK policy. First, Hill is still just yabbing. Secondly, there are other factors to consider besides North Korea. And thirdly, the devil is in the details. So I think that before we cast stones at Bush, let’s make sure he screw up first. (unless you casting stones for say… Iraq?)
And you know what? If you take a step back, DPRK is clearly losing. As long as that $300 million that I am reading in the headline comes from ROK treasury, this doesn’t really matter. Keep an eye on DailyNK.
You know when Marmot says that he doesn’t give a damn about NK, he has basically come to the same position as the rest of SK population a long time ago. (gasp!!) That’s what habitualization is all about. It’s the only sane solution in an insane crisis. It doesn’t matter what your political angle is.
The question I want to ask is, did we cave or did THEY cave? We just assume we caved. Maybe that’s to be expected. I’ll reserve my judgement for the time being.
“Shit, is Pawi holding a Canadian passport he spits on every day as a gesture of faith to the Korean motherland?”
It was a response to his suggestion that we, as foreigners, share some kind of collective guilt on war in Iraq and the geopolitical situation on the Korean peninsula.
I was pointing out that as Canadian, I wash my hands of that war. I can protest it all I want, I’m powerless to end it.
I also wash my hands of the geopolitical mess that is South and North Korea. In both cases, Koreans are the aggressors, whether it is through North Korea’s brinkmanship or South Korean soldiers in Iraq.
Here’s what Ron Paul said on the house floor last week:
“The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?”
We could add N. Korea, of course.
fred_random, dogbertt, sperwer, and others:
If you’re looking for a leader who doesn’t go along with Republicrat fantasies of policing the world to save it from itself OR babysitting Americans to save them from themselves, Ron Paul is running for prez. He’s been talking the talk, and walking the walk with votes in the house, for years.
http://www.house.gov/paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/henderson2.html
http://wonkette.com/politics/r.....228158.php
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar.....onpaul.htm
“I stopped caring about North Korea a long, long time ago.”
Really? I have always associated this blog with talk of North Korea, sometimes to the point of boredom as it poured over the minutae of it all, reading tea-leaves and all of that.
I am sure the wingnutz will find some way to blame Clinton for this appeasing situation – we just have to wait for the talking points.
that sound? the Moustache’s head exploding.
My take? This Bush (Condi) administration is desperately in need of any sort of foreign policy acheivement and if rumours of a war with Iran are to be believed, having a deal with DPRK can’t hurt the cause…
“Here’s what Ron Paul said on the house floor last week:
“The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?””
Ron Paul is the best man in the house. He is totally correct, too. US policy is severely flawed, and under President Bush, the US has unfortunately been belligerent.
Well, North Korea shouldn’t see this deal as a victory. Sometimes, you have to pick your battles carefully, and this is one of those times. The US is simply backing off because it has its hands tied in Iraq. They’ve even begun backing off Iran (a US general just said that although Iranians are involved there, it doesn’t mean that the Iranian government is involved). Iran and North Korea are two countries that they can afford to deal with later.
The Norks developed nukes for regime maintenance purposes. KJI knows that what the US ultimately wants is regime change. The only thing that prevents regime change is the KJI regime’s nukes, so they will NEVER negotiate them away. Never. So I would not bother to waste much effort trying to evaluate mull this latest ‘deal’ over. As thery used to say in the Ville, “Nevah hoppen, GI.”
I’m amazed Ron Paul finally won an election. Let’s hope his voice is heard.
Kunsan,
Ponder this: the highest-ranking North Korean defector claims Kim Jong Il told him that North Korea first tested nukes in 1992.
There were three countries named as the axis of evil about five years ago.
There is one left. The one that is actively making WMD and not even hiding the fact.
Time to get Iran.
(BTW, it has oil.)
Vietnam was an unwinnable colonial war – read your Barbara Tuchman and get edumacated.
Huh, you prick! You are not telling me anything new. Roll Bab’s book up as tight as you can and shove it up your ass. We lost the war because of slashed funding and the loss of will to fight.
As much as I hate seeing the Roh government ’succeed’ at anything, my investments in the Kosdaq are doing pretty good today.
From my understanding (from discussions with a war historian friend), the US did not ‘lose’ the Vietnam war (not saying they were winning, either). They pulled out and continued to support (fund) the South so it could hold off the Northerners, which it did successfully. Unfortunately, congress then cut off all funding and the South then fell. Call it a betrayal of an ally.
From my understanding (from discussions with a war historian friend), the US did not ‘lose’ the Vietnam war (not saying they were winning, either). They pulled out and continued to support (fund) the South so it could hold off the Northerners, which it did successfully. Unfortunately, congress then cut off all funding and the South then fell. Call it a betrayal of an ally.
YES!
Laughable! The US is eventually forced to cut and run any time it invades a nation bigger than, say, GRENADA.
Laughable! The US is eventually forced to cut and run any time it invades a nation bigger than, say, GRENADA.
We ae still in Japan and Korea.
are
What’s your country, trachys? I’ll bet it would be a good place to try and break our losing streak, assuming of course that the rest of the citiaenry aren’t mere pipsqueaks like you.
“A Day Late and Dollar Short…”
I use to loath George Bush, but now I just feel sorry for the turd. This rather unfortunate agreement pretty much sums up his whole two terms in office, “a day late and dollar short.” Not that I have any brilliant ideas myself, but the poor guy is simply lost, L-O-S-T. In Chess terminology this would be termed “zugzwang,” a compulsion to move with nowhere else to go. Likewise a lost, untenable position.
Indeed, this Emperor has no clothes, and a child figured that out.
Over the years, I have gotten away from the whole concept of God, (perhaps this too has something to do with Bush as well) but I still believe there is such thing as Karma. What’s happened to Bush is Just. If God truly exists, which I seriously doubt, this final insult in the hands of Kim Jong-Il is what Bush truly deserves. The fact that he’s been reduced to this is humiliation itself.
Someday, a presidential historian will turn a chapter in human history, look back and write what has taken place in his wake, but the real story of Bush is a story not one of a tragedy but one of pathology.
“Pathetic” would be a better term.
I say pathetic because Bush is not a tragic figure. It’s not even a comic-tragedy which is my specialty, but I digress. I say pathetic because Bush is not a proper tragic figure. He lacks the proper depth and sophistication to play a proper tragic figure on a Greek stage. His, “is a poor fool, a tale told by an idiot,” you get the point.
Back to the point, Bush represent something much simpler….It’s just unadulterated pure greed. This idiot thought he could just waltz into Iraq and open up some untapped oil reserve for his oil buddies in Texas. It’s not that difficult to understand this simpleton’s mind.
Any historian who thinks this moron was some sort of misunderstood giant needs to open up his cranium when he’s dead and find some broken tubes. They’re not going to find much else. If this idiot really knew anything about history, even a grade level history of Middle-East, he would have known he was walking into a Lion’s Den, 700 year history of sectarian violence,
not much, but certain to give one a pause at least.
Of course George Bush Jr. never read a book in his life as he often love to boast. These are no great secret here, there are no mysteries.
Oh don’t you see me standing here I got my back against the record machine
Origami,
I am sure this blog is not the place to help you find yourself. If Bush wanted the oil, he would have taken it. What bush wants is stability in the Middle East, and with that comes reasonable oil prices. One issue that has not been addressed on this blog or by most media is the progress in Iraq.
I don’t think Bush is a turd, inarticulate at times yes, but a good American at the end of the day. Let’s roll the tape backwards and ask ourselves how the country would be operating if the father of the internet was in The Oval office?
Someguyinkorea, I’m not sure what your point is in your statement above? It seems hearsay evidence at best and I’m not sure how it relates to the ‘nuclear deal’ that has been struck. My point is just that ALL Nork policy is geared toward maintaining the KJI regime in power. It does not matter what happens to the rest of the country or its people. To completely protect the KJI regime the Norks must develop/keep nuclear weapons (or have us think they have them). Only nukes checkmate US regime change intentions. IMHO, they can/will not give them up under any circumstances. I predict that you will see the usual shuck and jive on their part and on ours and the usual eventual collapse of the ‘understanding’ about just what was agreed to.
Also, it boggles the mind to think that Gore would have screwed the pooch on US foreign policy any worse than the current gang of idiots in the Bush administration. By any set of measurements (Conservative or Liberal) this guy has been an major disaster and his coming attack on Iran will be but the mould on a giant shit sandwich from which we will all have to take a big bite. Koreans North and South will stand up and cheer when Bush attacks Iran as it will prevent another war on the Korean peninsula (for a while).
“IMHO, they can/will not give them up under any circumstances. I predict that you will see the usual shuck and jive on their part and on ours and the usual eventual collapse of the ‘understanding’ about just what was agreed to.”
Spot on.
“Koreans North and South will stand up and cheer when Bush attacks Iran as it will prevent another war on the Korean peninsula (for a while).”
I highly doubt many in Korea will be cheering as so many hate the US. But I also very much doubt that an attack on the North is in the works. I’ve seen not the slightest indication of this.
Snow, I was speaking figuratively rather than literally about the cheering. I agree that there is no preparation to attack the Norks, but I wonder what the Bushies would be doing if the Iraq war had gone smoothly and they were now looking around for another regime to change? They seem to be a one-trick pony with war being the one trick.
I highly doubt many in Korea will be cheering as so many hate the US. But I also very much doubt that an attack on the North is in the works. I’ve seen not the slightest indication of this.
Make that envy and you have a valid statement.
The White House must claim a victory. If the talks fail Nancy Pelosi will wag her anti-Bush Dildo at the whole administration. No solutions, only criticism. We need to starve them out. No oil, no reactor.
I agree. The only sense I can make of this is that it’s early electioneering. Rice getting her groove on makes room for the top dogs to say ‘it warn’t me’ when and if the issue gets hot later. In the meantime they can sell a foreign policy ‘achievement.’
But they’re essentially the same hardballers beneath it all, so I wouldn’t imagine there won’t be sudden, renewed heat on Nork badness after a Repo victory, if they get it. The demos get in it, could be a new ball game. Probably not a better one. Life continues.
“Vietnam was an unwinnable colonial war – read your Barbara Tuchman and get edumacated.
Huh, you prick! You are not telling me anything new. Roll Bab’s book up as tight as you can and shove it up your ass. We lost the war because of slashed funding and the loss of will to fight.”
An interesting side topic.
I will take a lot of grief for this but..
While the US certainly didn’t win in Vietnam, you would have a very hard time saying the North Vietnamese won. They ran the US out.. but what they were left with made the concept of seriously growing asian communism a joke. With the hammering they took, they didn’t exactly have the resources to spread the religion of Marx out and around their neighborhood. They were left to build a nation from nothing.
An interesting side topic.
I will take a lot of grief for this but..
While the US certainly didn’t win in Vietnam, you would have a very hard time saying the North Vietnamese won. They ran the US out.. but what they were left with made the concept of seriously growing asian communism a joke. With the hammering they took, they didn’t exactly have the resources to spread the religion of Marx out and around their neighborhood. They were left to build a nation from nothing.
Precisely! We were run out because of the American people and her politicians could no longer stomach the nightly televised body counts.
But they’re essentially the same hardballers beneath it all, so I wouldn’t imagine there won’t be sudden, renewed heat on Nork badness after a Repo victory, if they get it. The demos get in it, could be a new ball game. Probably not a better one. Life continues.
Hear, hear!
Do you recall when Carter came in and preached human rights over security? He invited the Shaw leave and we lost stability in one of the four major Muslim nations in the Middle East. His idiot administration said the new guy was a modern day Gandhi, we all know better now…. I can see it now with the DEMS. All the weak minded idiots will cry Vietnam and we will loose all purchase on the matter at hand, the ongoing first Caliphate.
You must log in to post a comment.