PDA

View Full Version : finally, talks w/ north korea


zimv20
Aug 1, 2003, 02:31 PM
link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/bush.n.korea/index.html)


The talks would include North Korea, the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.


i'm glad china is involved, as well as russia.

but i didn't know that _this_ is what was holding it up:

The regime of Kim Jong Il had demanded economic aid for its starving country, as well as a non-aggression pact with the United States, in exchange for shutting down its nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration has been reluctant to put any non-aggression guarantee in writing.


why does that not surprise me? (emphasis mine)

macfan
Aug 1, 2003, 03:06 PM
It doesn't surprise you because you know that military action must be a possiblity in negotiations or the North Koreans hold too many of the cards, and in your hear you know the Bush administration isn't stupid enough to sign away that possiblity up front.

zimv20
Aug 1, 2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by macfan
military action must be a possiblity in negotiations or the North Koreans hold too many of the cards

i assume that for bush to sign that, the north koreans would have to disarm. and if they didn't, the treaty would be void, thus legally allowing for a military option.

i read it as: under no circumstances would (or could?) bush consider not using the military.

it would cost nothing for bush to announce that he'd consider signing it. and it would gain him some positive support around the world, where a lot of people already seem to believe the worst about him.

Backtothemac
Aug 1, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i assume that for bush to sign that, the north koreans would have to disarm. and if they didn't, the treaty would be void, thus legally allowing for a military option.

i read it as: under no circumstances would (or could?) bush consider not using the military.

it would cost nothing for bush to announce that he'd consider signing it. and it would gain him some positive support around the world, where a lot of people already seem to believe the worst about him.

Wait, haven't we learned out lesson about "non-aggression" treaties. I remember a few of those before WWI that caused quite a disaster. Actually Stalin had one crash into him as well.

Point is, say we sign it, and then N. Korea attacks Japan. Then what. The idea is bogus, and is a political ploy by N. Korea to influence regional and world opinon. Big US is going to beat us up, and they won't sign this treaty to prove they won't. When the truth is they have a political agenda behind the idea. Bush knows it, and will not sign it. We will never have a Non-Aggression treaty with a Communist Country. Never.

zimv20
Aug 1, 2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
say we sign it, and then N. Korea attacks Japan. Then what.

the bottom line reality is -- even if bush did sign such a document, he would feel free to break it.

for purposes of your example, the document would list exemptions based on NK actions. e.g. continuing w/ its nuclear program, attacking a sovereign nation, etc.

i feel that bush had a lot to gain by stating he'd consider signing such a pact, and in reality not a lot to lose. to me, it looks like a lost opportunity for an improvement of his international image.