US and Korea "Slipping Into War"

[Drake Tungsten]

bush's policy towards nkorea, if you haven't noticed, has flip-flopped a few times during his tenure...

It's a difficult foreign policy problem that has taken several suprising turns. I'd be much more worried if Bush's foreign policy hadn't changed.

we'll disagree on the bilateral negotiations bit. i think it's a good idea until we can finally convince the others to join in by carrot-and-stick diplomacy.

We would never convince the others to jump on board after we started bilateral negotiations. Why would they stick their necks out to solve the problem when the U.S. was already commited? Much easier to let the "big kid" take care of everything once again.

[TCO]

it should be obvious that we have much more leverage to get the other players onboard BEFORE we start bilateral talks than after they are underway. You really are naive.

[Q Classic]

this:

bush's policy towards nkorea, if you haven't noticed, has flip-flopped a few times during his tenure...

is a direct response to this:

Q-cubed, you don't let a bully make you change your policy too quickly (or at all).

(sigh) i'm tired of this. i can't convince you, and you won't convince me. let's let this thread die and let preconceptions live on.

and i realize we have more leverage before. but we're not going to stop this from getting worse unless we get in there now.

i'm not naive. from what i know, and how i believe things are laid out right there right now, it's the best solution that i've come to.

you're more than welcome to disagree. it doesn't matter anyhow, because we're not the ones who'll ultimately decide the policy.

[Gatekeeper]

If I were Bush, this is what I'd do: I would accept bilateral negotiations with North Korea. But here comes the three catches:

1. Before negotiations even begin, NK would allow full access to its nuclear facilities by the appropriate UN personnel.

2. At the same time, NK would cease any nuclear activities related to weapons — verifiable, of course, by the same UN personnel as described above.

3. With the negotiations under way, I would be quite blunt: I am willing to overlook this entire treaty-abrogating episode, NK, but only if you agree to go back to the terms of the 1994 Framework Agreement *amended* so that there's more than just two UN personnel in Pyongyang to ensure you're following the terms of that agreement to the damn letter. NK must also avail itself of the offers of help that have come from across the planet.

That's our offer from these negotiations, NK. Go back to 1994 or risk it all for the very likely chance you will no longer be in power by the middle of 2004, Mr. Kim.

So, I have no problem with "bilateral negotiations." The only thing is, it's back to the 1994 Framework Agreement or nothing. You can't expect to cave in to NK, give them *more* than what they had in 1994, and expect them to follow any new agreement for any longer than they think it might benefit them. At which point, they'd pull the same crap again — gimme, gimme, gimme, or we'll sell nukes and/or make life a living hell for the rest of the world.

Gatekeeper

[TCO]

Gatekeeper, the negotiations would never happen then.

[TCO]

ok Q.

[DanS]

I'm inclined to wait it out some. Take an opportunity if it's offered free of charge. Quietly line up world opinion for interdiction of all NK cargo. Use the implicit threat of nuclearization of our allies to incentivize China. Exert constant low-level military pressure on NK. IOW, what Bush is doing now.

About the clarity of Bush's policy, all I have to say is that US policy is clearer than any other country's in the area.

[TCO]

Sometimes, I get the impression people like to just ***** abouyt us. They ***** when we don't go to war. They ***** when we do.

[DanS]

Then they accuse us of being inconsistent in both circumstances.

[TCO]

They're like little children who complain when Daddy isn't perfect.

[Kramerman]

everybody is an idiot



that was easier than i thought

[Kramerman]

if we all chant "everyone is an idot" together, and hold hands, it would be an exdellent bonding excersize for teh forum

[DanS]

No thanks. Not everyone is an idiot. They should know better and be more self critical rather than being kneejerk Americritics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i have much less of a problem seeing manchuria turned into glass. macarthur wanted nukes to beat off the chinese by hitting them in their home territory, expanding the war from just the peninsula.
sounds callous, yes, but in my eyes it would have been worth it to have a unified, democratic korea.

Would it have been democratic? It's only become so in the last ten years.

Anyways, the use of nukes by the US on China would very likely have resulted in the use of nukes in Europe by the Soviets.

I certainly would not have wanted to see WWIII over Korea. It's just not important enough to destroy the world over.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Would it have been democratic? It's only become so in the last ten years.

Anyways, the use of nukes by the US on China would very likely have resulted in the use of nukes in Europe by the Soviets.

I certainly would not have wanted to see WWIII over Korea. It's just not important enough to destroy the world over.

No, it would not be worth it, IF it ends up starting another WWIII. But i believe Q was only considering the nuclear damages without causing WIII. Perhaps nuking Manchuria could be better, if it results Unified Korea without creating another WW. I believe this is what Q meant.