N. Korea is 100% right by the way.

[Selwynn]

They believe that the only way the United States will leave them alone is if they have the deterrence of nuclear weapons, and without that deterrence, they'd still be one Bush's list of countries to take over.

They're right about that too. Iran knows it as well. Bush has ignited a new arms race - the race to get nukes to protect your sovereignty before the US can invade.

It's really sad to me that the biggest cause of nuclear proliferation today is the threat of US agression.

[donsu]

1. agree, N. Korea would be foolish not to protect themselves from smirk

it's stupid to think N. Korea would attack another country without being provoked.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I think you're right about that

After what happened to Iraq, the rest of the alleged "axis of evil" is going to be inspired to rev of their defenses.

[TrustingDog]

3. so why did those Bushdoofuses handle this so badly?

Because they do want raging wars all over.

There is no other answer.

[tedzbear]

4. Who can blame Iran either?

Especially since we invaded their Shiite cousins next door. No doubt the Iranians will have the bomb by some time next year, providing they develop enough processed uranium.
It is frightening to think that we will preemptively attack Iran and start WW III just to protect Israel who has tons of nukes that are condoned by us.

[Kinkistyle]

5. To think that we were THIS close to breaking down N.Korea

With Clintons and South Korea's Sunshine Policy were REALLY REALLY close to breaking down the walls to North Korea and starting an interaction resembling that of China. Heck they started building a railroad connecting the North and South.

That all ended when Shrub came into office, and not only that - we've regressed.

[Kanary]

6. I think this is one of the factors that may cause Europe to become

involved. I'm wondering if Europe will band together to find some way to stop the US from blowing up the planet.

Having come of age during the Cold War, I'm wary of overstating things, but I also see something more sinister than has been there before.

Yet, a large part of the country vociferously defends him, and wants him in control.

We're one sick nation.

Kanary

[Deja Q]

12. The polls say ~53% want * in terms of defending the country

Stupid assertion on their part, but oh well.

I've been seeing FAR more Kerry signs these days, but my town isn't the whole country.

We are sick if * is voted in legitimately.

Heck, we're sick if more than 20% of this country prefers him.

[Kanary]

15. I still think this may be one of the factors that causes Europe to

act in unison against the US.

Kanary

[Character Assassin]

7. Wrong on so many comical levels

They believe that the only way the United States will leave them alone is if they have the deterrence of nuclear weapons, and without that deterrence, they'd still be one Bush's list of countries to take over.

"Leave them alone?" That's rich. I see you are utterly unaquainted with the history of N. Korea. Tell me, even without nukes, do you understand the dynamics and logistics that would be involved in the US going into N. Korea as we did in Iraq. Do you even remotely begin to understand the loss of human life on a scale that would exponetially swamp what has happened in Iraq?

They're right about that too. Iran knows it as well. Bush has ignited a new arms race - the race to get nukes to protect your sovereignty before the US can invade.

Yawn. Both Iran and N.K. were trying to get Nukes well before Bush II raised his ugly head.

It's really sad to me that the biggest cause of nuclear proliferation today is the threat of US agression.

You have zero idea what you're talking about.

[wuushew]

8. You will please remember that NK withdrew from the NPT in 2003

So for all those years Clinton was in office the agreed framework was functioning. Although their clandestine uranium program was illegal it was not mentioned as a breach of the offical Korean-American agreement which dealt with the plutonium related weapons programs.

Instead of defending Bush why don't you place blame at those who soured relations by calling others pygmies and who also cut off needed heavy oil to a cold and starving country.

[Selwynn]

9. Well...

"Tell me, even without nukes, do you understand the dynamics and logistics that would be involved in the US going into N. Korea as we did in Iraq."

That's thinking from the United States perspective. I don't think that is the same thing as looking at it from N. Korea's perspective. I was never intending to suggest that the *only* factor in N. Korea's race for arms was security/deterrence based. I was suggesting however that Bush has exasperated and escalated the situation and caused N. Korea to step up its pace. N. Korea directly says that the United States has basically shown that no country without nuclear power is safe from its aggression, and that this is one of the reasons why it has pursued nuclear armament. You can believe that they are lying about that if you want, but it makes sense to me.

"Yawn. Both Iran and N.K. were trying to get Nukes well before Bush II raised his ugly head."

Well, the US foreign policy of aggression was around long before Bush II raised his ugly head as well. It has only become even more urgent, from the their perspective, under Bush II. I say again, I am not suggesting that there was no motivation to pursue nuclear weapons prior to Bush, nor was I trying to suggest that security is the only motivation. However, the United States and its policies have created a global climate where there are huge perceived benefits to becoming a nuclear power - and the rest of the world even directly says so. That is not the only cause, but it is a huge cause.

"You have zero idea what you're talking about."

Good to know we're equals, then.

[Character Assassin]

18. I stand by my claim

"Tell me, even without nukes, do you understand the dynamics and logistics that would be involved in the US going into N. Korea as we did in Iraq."

That's thinking from the United States perspective.

Yes. And?

I don't think that is the same thing as looking at it from N. Korea's perspective.

Yes. And?

I was never intending to suggest that the *only* factor in N. Korea's race for arms was security/deterrence based.

Really? Then why did you say, "They believe that the only way the United States will leave them alone is if they have the deterrence of nuclear weapons, and without that deterrence, they'd still be one Bush's list of countries to take over."

I was suggesting however that Bush has exasperated and escalated the situation and caused N. Korea to step up its pace. N. Korea directly says that the United States has basically shown that no country without nuclear power is safe from its aggression, and that this is one of the reasons why it has pursued nuclear armament. You can believe that they are lying about that if you want, but it makes sense to me.

Yes, I believe they're lying, if that's what your imputing to them only under the Bush II admin, since that's what they've been doing for years already.

"Yawn. Both Iran and N.K. were trying to get Nukes well before Bush II raised his ugly head."

Well, the US foreign policy of aggression was around long before Bush II raised his ugly head as well.

In regards to NK? Please clarify your statement.

It has only become even more urgent, from the their perspective, under Bush II.

I see no evidence that Bush II has specifically influenced this, including the 'axis of evil' speech. They were on an inevitable, as-soon-as-possible schedule to get nukes.

I say again, I am not suggesting that there was no motivation to pursue nuclear weapons prior to Bush, nor was I trying to suggest that security is the only motivation. However, the United States and its policies have created a global climate where there are huge perceived benefits to becoming a nuclear power - and the rest of the world even directly says so.

Some of the world does, I'm sure, but that's irrelevant to NK.

That is not the only cause, but it is a huge cause.

I don't think so. The Kims have been trying by almost any means possible to have nukes for their own, pathological misanthropy. To try and pass this off on the Bush admin is to ignore history and expose your own bias towards ignoring the facts.

[Selwynn]

19. I disagree.

That's thinking from the United States perspective.

Yes. And?


And... thinking from the united states perspective is not the same thing as thinking from the perspective of other countries.



I don't think that is the same thing as looking at it from N. Korea's perspective.

Yes. And?


And... thinking from the united states perspective is not the same thing as thinking from the perspective of other countries. I believe that Bush's approach to foreign policy has exacerbated the problem of nuclear proliferation by giving other countries additional huge incentives to stockpile nuclear weapons. The administration has given them even more reasons to see the benefit rather than less reason to. Of course N. Korea has explicitly said that its escalation of its nuclear program is a direct response to the aggressive rhetoric and action of the United States.


I was never intending to suggest that the *only* factor in N. Korea's race for arms was security/deterrence based.

Really? Then why did you say, "They believe that the only way the United States will leave them alone is if they have the deterrence of nuclear weapons, and without that deterrence, they'd still be one Bush's list of countries to take over."


Well for one thing, just because I used the English word "only" two different places doesn't mean they have anything to do with each other. Saying that N. Korea believes the only way the US will leave them alone is to escalate their nuclear program is not synonymous with saying that this is their only motivation for pursuing nuclear weapons. But denying that it is one at all is pretty obtuse.



Well, the US foreign policy of aggression was around long before Bush II raised his ugly head as well.

In regards to NK? Please clarify your statement.


Really? Do we need a history lesson of U.S. Hegemony? No, I know you don't - you want to know how all of that history relates specifically to N. Korea. Well, the United States already has a long history of aggression, and that history was embodied into the current President who stood up and called out North Korea, saying it was part of the Axis of Evil and in effect putting on the Texan 10 gallon hat and saying "we're coming for you." Now, maybe I'm just weird. But if I was my country that Bush had said that to, I would immediately start looking for ways to deter the threat of US aggression. If I had a nuclear program, I would immediately kick it into high gear. I'm not sure why that notion is so "comical" to you.

I'm not saying N. Korea was not interested in nuclear weapons before Bush. However, if you know your history then you know that during the Clinton years, that concern was slowed thanks to various deals with N. Korea that worked. I think you're going to have a really, really hard time coming up with credible evidence to suggest that somehow N. Korea has not stepped up its nuclear weapons program aggressively and dramatically in direct response to the mad man we have in the white house. We ought to be able to agree that Bush has made things worse with Korea in his approach, not better. And he has given the world a new lists of reasons to be motivated to develop a nuclear deterrent - how can you even argue with that? If I was the leader of a small country there is no doubt in my mind I would want nuclear weapons as a way of keep big western countries from taking over on a whim.

"I see no evidence that Bush II has specifically influenced this, including the 'axis of evil' speech. They were on an inevitable, as-soon-as-possible schedule to get nukes."

I feel like this really ignores the history of our relationship with N. Korea, especially under Clinton. I think its pretty incredible to try and deny that tensions and problems with N. Korea sharply escalated under Bush, and that their race to nuclear weapons increased sharply under Bush as well.

Some of the world does, I'm sure, but that's irrelevant to NK.

I don't think that it is. I believe that had Al Gore been elected president, our situation with N. Korea would not be the same as it is today.


I don't think so. The Kims have been trying by almost any means possible to have nukes for their own, pathological misanthropy. To try and pass this off on the Bush admin is to ignore history and expose your own bias toward ignoring the facts.


Well, I've said the same thing about you in paragraphs above, so we'll just have to disagree. You seem to think that I am arguing that N. Korea was sitting around sniffing flowers and singing hymns of peace until bush came to power, and then all hell broke loose. But what I am really saying is that the Bush administration has made problems with N. Korea worse, has pushed them into a position of escalated urgency, has destabilized some of the tenuous diplomatic avenues we actually had with them, and has in an all-around fashions miserably failed in his decisions on N. Korea.

The result of that failure has been the acceleration of what you believe to be an ongoing progression. Bush has handed N. Korea and the world one more reason to pursue nuclear weapons - not taken one away. How can you possibly deny that? And that is all I'm saying. In the world under Bush's leadership, its really important for small sovereign countries to have nukes so that they stand a chance of not getting invaded by the US. That's the message we send to the world.

I'm trying not to overdo my language toward you, and keep it respectful, though sometimes your rhetoric to me puts me on the defensive. I do appreciate the point you are making that N. Korea was not some sweet innocent country that did nothing but dream of peace and love until driven to nuclear weapon making by Bush. But I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that the Bush administration has made things worse with N. Korea not better, and that things HAVE escalated and accelerated under Bush's watch, and that N. Korea has been given one more reason why building nukes is in their best interests, not had one more reason taken away by this administration. And that is a shame. And in terms of the rest of the world, it is a shame that the Bush administration and its policies of aggression will be remembered for starting a new global arms race.

Why is that so controversial to you?


EDIT - I am going to add one thing in the sprit of fostering real dialoge and not just posturing: I definately could be mistaken in my thinking on this. So, I acknowledge that. But in the simplest language possible, even if I am mistaken on a few things, I feel that Bush has made the situation with N Korea worse not better - escalated tensions not de-escalated them, and given N. Koren a whole fresh batch of incentives to rigorously pursue nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that?

[Character Assassin]

22. In short: yes, I disagree with that.

The Clinton admin/Sunshine policy failed outright, as the NKs as well as admitted that they were pushing their nuke program forward the entire time they were supposed to have been curtailing it.

In short: they lied, they wanted them and were pursuing them all along, and Bush II had nothing to do with this.

The result of that failure has been the acceleration of what you believe to be an ongoing progression. Bush has handed N. Korea and the world one more reason to pursue nuclear weapons - not taken one away. How can you possibly deny that?

What I'm saying is it is irrelevant what he said. Anyone who wanted them was going to get them in any case.

In fact, it is clearly illogical to try and pin this all on Bush while oh-so-quietly tip-toeing around the fact that, under Clinton, India and Pakistan became full-fledged nuclear powers, to use the criteria that you have.

[wuushew]

23. Please find me an article showing Sunshine policy was outright failure

n/t

[KharmaTrain]

10. Blowback?

Besides the "prestige" of having these weapons and firing them over Japan, what true strategic value do nukes serve the North Koreans?

I know there's no logic to Kim Il Sung, however, he has to realize that any use of a nuke means his little hermit kingdom will roast. Not only would there be a massive retaliation by our Tridents off his coast but also dropping a nuke so close to his own border (one would assume he would drop it on ROK or Japan) would blowback onto his country.

If you don't think having the weapons, or having the impression that you have those weapons isn't a deterent, then why have them?

[Q]

11. Part of the equation that you left out...

...Bush* announced that the US is currently building a new generation of nuclear weapons and plan a resumption of nuclear testing. Bush* & gang actually believe they could USE these nukes in their war on terrorism. The countries on the 'axis of evil' list believe the Bushies WILL use these weapons against them.

- I agree with your analysis that the Bushies are raising the stakes in that they have already threatened these countries. They will now do everything they can to defend themselves...even to the point of rushing to pursue nukes and joining WITH the terrorists.

[Selwynn]

13. Thanks for mentioning that. Great point.

[Zhade]

14. Hell, NK's #1 demand? A pledge that the U.S. won't invade them.

Gee, what an unreasonable demand!

</sarcasm>

Yep - the b*sh administration is THE catalyst in a new arms race. Pisses me off to no end. And if Kerry doesn't want more countries doing like NK, he should stop being so belligerent toward Iran. After all, like them or not, Iran has the right to self-defense.

[Selwynn]

20. Exactly .

[Abid Hamid]

16. I find that hard to believe.

I don't think they are sitting arounf going lets develop nukes so the US will leave us alone.

Korea is Chinas problem. China has to deal with them and their nukes. I don't think the US needs to involve ourselves in that affair until China asks us..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. But, we're so peaceloving!! 29 wars or conflicts since 1900

Everything from the "Banana Wars" (to protect United Fruit) to mighty Greneda to Nicaragua to Iraq I and II.

Why should the North Koreans worry about us? We just send our troops to support freedom, dignity, and to pass out Hershey bars to jubilant and grateful people who just adore American bombs and missles.

[CoffeeAnnan]

21. One of the doctrines near and dear to the hearts and minds of our

bought and paid for media is the virtuous intent of our leaders and by corollary, the evil intent of everyone else. This belief that has been elevated to a dogma by repetition over so many decades now has taken some comical aspects when applied to nuclear weapons.This country which possesses the most awesome arsenal known to man, is claiming that it is threatened, not by the actual weapons saddam Hussin owned (he didn't have any)but by his INTENT to own some.Similarly, this country claims to be threatened by North Korea possessing 4 or 5 weapons which may or may not be deliverable with the limited capabilities that country has in missiles.

The lack of a sense of proportion in all this fearmongering goes unnoticed in our media as they genuflect in front of our socalled leaders.