finally, talks w/ north korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 1, 2003.

  1. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #1
    link

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

    but i didn't know that _this_ is what was holding it up:
    why does that not surprise me? (emphasis mine)
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #2
    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.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    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.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #5
    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.
     

Share This Page