What laughable nonsense from the Bush administration. Apparently North Korea has a choice: nuclear weapons or a future?
quote:
The Bush administration delivered a secret message to North Korea yesterday warning it to back down from a promised nuclear test, and it said publicly that the United States would not live with a nuclear-armed Pyongyang government.
North Korea "can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both," Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill said yesterday in remarks at Johns Hopkins University's U.S.-Korea Institute. It was the toughest response yet from the Bush administration, coming two days after Pyongyang announced plans to conduct its first nuclear test.
My favourite part of the article is the administration's belief that a test would destabilize the region. You couldn't make this stuff up.
quote:
The State Department issued a worldwide communique to foreign governments afterward reiterating the administration's belief that a test would destabilize the region.
So N Korea now have nuclear WMDs, and if the Bush administratio weren't just blowing hot air - no future.
A closer look at Bush's foreign policy:
Bush REFUSES to talk to Iran, threatens Iran with words and sanctions, puts them on the "Axis of Evil" list. Iran continue to develop their nuclear energy policy.
Bush REFUSES to talk to N Korea, threatens them with words and sanctions and puts them on the "Axis of Evil" list. N Korea continue to develop their nuclear WMD and have now tested a bomb and so joined the other 8 nations with nuclear weapons.
Wow, what a hugely succesful foreign policy Bush has followed - threats that don't work, backed up with a complete refusal to talk, negotiate, or in any way engage these countries. Well, at least Bush can look towards his policy in Iraq and Afghanistan as...
And this is different from the rest of the united nations hot air blowing on the knees how?
You keep saying Bush bush bush but this isn't any different then the other world leaders that are bending over atm
namely brits leaders
Dreamzwalker said this in post #3 : And this is different from the rest of the united nations hot air blowing on the knees how?
You keep saying Bush bush bush but this isn't any different then the other world leaders that are bending over atm
namely brits leaders
I don't recall anyone in the UN or a British politicians threatening NK with the choice between either nuclear weapons or a future. What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all, because it means the US's standing in the world has now decreased that little bit more.
As does the war in Iraq and Afghaninstan (and the failure in Lebanon) which is proving that America is in no shape - both politically and militarily - to threaten anyone, and NK is taking full advantage of that fact. Bush has blown it, and is now having to ask the communist dictators in China to do something.
What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all,...
How do you conclude that there is no weight behind the threat? Bush also made a lot of threats before going into Iraq. There are things that the U.S. can do such as a blockade of NK. I don't think we are going to get much by asking the Chinese to fix the problem unless we stop buying their cheap, crappy products.
How do you conclude that there is no weight behind the threat? Bush also made a lot of threats before going into Iraq. There are things that the U.S. can do such as a blockade of NK. I don't think we are going to get much by asking the Chinese to fix the problem unless we stop buying their cheap, crappy products.
I'm talking about a military threat. Iraq and Aghanistan put paid to that. The US military is overstretched and anthing that might provoke a military response from NK would be insane. Plus there is also the not so small matter of what gives the US the right to attack anyone they choose because they don't like them? btw - when is America getting rid of its nuclear WMDs? They are the only country in the world who have a record of using nuclear WMDs on innocent civilians and they have started two aggresive wars in the last 5 years. Why is NK such a danger by comparison?
NK is under sanctions and much of the population lives in poverty. Face it - NK has the bomb and there's not much anyone can do about it now, other than blockades and isolation. We don't worry too much about Israel, India, Pakistan, France, the UK, etc having the bomb, so we'll no doubt get used to NK having it too. Aparently Japan could have the bomb within weeks if they want to so maybe that's an option for them - get a "deterent. Same with S Korea.
btw - both Japan and S Korea have stronger militaries than N Korea, and NK have stated the reason they needed the bomb was to protect against US aggression.
I don't recall anyone in the UN or a British politicians threatening NK with the choice between either nuclear weapons or a future. What kind of stupid childish threat is that? Making threats without any weight behind them is worse than not making threats at all,...
h@ts,
Although we might disagree from time to time, I could not agree more with your point about the effect of making threats and not backing them up.
h@ts said this in post #6 : "... The US military is overstretched and anthing that might provoke a military response from NK would be insane. ..."
Are you suggesting that if North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies if it doesn't get its way, then the US and its allies should capitulate and succumb to the threats, thereby reacting to avoid confrontation? Do you really believe that North Korea won't keep threatening in order to "get its way" like some spoiled child? You and the UN seem to think in the same manner -- praise North Korea for what it has accomplished and keep giving in to its demands. Welcome to the new arms race.
Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them?
:::>^..^<::: ~*~The Journey is more important than the end or the start~*~ :::>^..^<:::
Are you suggesting that if North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons against the US and its allies if it doesn't get its way, then the US and its allies should capitulate and succumb to the threats, thereby reacting to avoid confrontation?
It is the US government that is doing the threatening. NK is reacting to those threats. NK has asked the US for a peace pact, and for direct talks with Washington. If the threat is so serious I suggest Bush talks with NK.
[quote]Do you really believe that North Korea won't keep threatening in order to "get its way" like some spoiled child? You and the UN seem to think in the same manner -- praise North Korea for what it has accomplished and keep giving in to its demands. Welcome to the new arms race.
NK wants the US to stop threatening to attack it, which is exactly what Iran has asked of Washington but both countries were ignored by Bush. So what's the alternative? If Bush is going to stomp around the world demanding regime changes in countries he doesn't like there will be repurcusions. I don't welcome this new arms race but NK have nukes and they are not going to give them up. I suggest Japan and S Korea look into getting their own.
Lawless said this in post #9 : Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them?
There are no rules about who can have nukes and who cannot. But when smaller countries threaten bigger countries with nukes, the big country stops them because they can.
How can cops carry guns and dictate to convicted felons that they can't carry guns? Who are cops to threaten convicted felons who have paid their price and done their time?
NK wants the US to stop threatening to attack it, which is exactly what Iran has asked of Washington but both countries were ignored by Bush. So what's the alternative? If Bush is going to stomp around the world demanding regime changes in countries he doesn't like there will be repurcusions. I don't welcome this new arms race but NK have nukes and they are not going to give them up. I suggest Japan and S Korea look into getting their own.
The US has stated that it does not want to attack North Korea. I don't know how it could be stated any more plainly.
We've all seen what devastation can occur when a nuclear weapon is exploded. Why do you want to increase the chance that it could happen again? Sounds to me that you welcome the chance of another war taking place.
Lawless said this in post #9 : Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them?
We, the US, are not the only country with nuclear weapons; we're only one of six (pardon me, now seven). And the US is not the only one dictating that North Korea not have them. China and Russia (two that do have nuclear weapons and friends to North Korea) have also stated that they did not want North Korea to possess nuclear weapons... and North Korea told them to "stick it".
Lawless said this in post #9 : Just wondering.... why is it okay that we, the US, have nuclear weapons... but, if another country does, we are going to threaten them? I'm not okay with anyone having them... but is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do?" Who in the hell do we think that we are to dictate that they can't have them?
A good question I've yet to hear answered. There has been all kinds of non-proliferation policies so I don't know how the US and UK can openly talk about developing new types of nukes themselves. Blair has just said we are going to spend £25billion updated our own "deterrent", tridant, no discussion with the public necessary.
Nukes or not, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strike means that anyone who might one day be a threat to the US or its interests at any unspecified time in the future can be a target for US aggression.
10-06-2006 04:03 PM
