Posted by Sean-Paul @ 01/13/2003 09:18 AM
| TrackBack
Comments:
What do you think we should do to handle the DPRK?
We made a deal with them that we didn't keep — that deal involved energy aid that we never gave them. Now they've renegged on their part of the deal.
Maybe we should look at rekindling the deal and actually sticking to it this time?
Posted by: George Paine on January 13, 2003 10:53 AM
Bush is "all hat" again (reminds me of his handling of Israel). His fascist-like image demands he pretend that North Korea was being "appeased" when America never had the slightest intention of giving NK anything at all.
NK: Gee we need electricity; better make some power stations
Amerika: We won't let you have nuclear power; let your people starve to death instead
NK: Piss off.
Amerika: Ok how about we supply you with oil instead of you using those reactors?
NK: Oh right, let's put our entire energy security in the hands of a power-mad country that is still technically at war with us. Genius move.
Amerika: Ok what do you want?
NK: Well at bare minimum if this is going to work out then we want an end to the war, and end to the sanctions against us and a treaty saying you will not attack us or start up the sanctions again, and forget the idea of oil - we need an independant power supply - you can build us light reactors.
Amerika (with finger crossed behind back): sure, sure.
(9 years later)
Bush: Clinton that appeaser! Giving the North Koreans oil like that!
Posted by: DavidByron on January 13, 2003 12:58 PM
It's less the oil concessions that were the problem with the 1994 agreement - it was the complete lack of follow-through that's worrying. It's fine to use a carrot-and-stick approach, but you cannot expect a nation like North Korea to stick to their end of the bargin without verfication.
The 1994 deal offered very little in the way to make sure that North Korea kept their end of the bargin. Chances are they never actually stopped their nuclear program.
I'm not sure that it's quite right to blame Clinton for the current situation, although his administration isn't blameless either. Still, a mess was made, and had we been on the ball for the past nine years we should never have allowed the DPRK to obtain nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Jay Reding on January 13, 2003 05:11 PM
Why is there so much misunderstanding here?
(1) There was verification -- who do you think those inspectors were that NK recently ejected??
(2) Until a few months back America was saying NK was conforming perfectly well.
(3) As far as anyone knows NK did indeed conform perfectly up until they ejected the inspectors just recently because uranium reprocessing was not against the Agreed Framework except by way of a goal of a nuclear free zone in Korea.
(4) The agreed framework offered NK a lot (economic and military security) and but America never honoured ANY of the agreement except the oil - which was supposed to be a temporary measure.
Posted by: DavidByron on January 13, 2003 05:21 PM
don't listen to what bush says.. watch what bush does
Posted by: Wesley Dabney on January 14, 2003 11:08 AM
dang.. link didn't work..
don't listen to what bush says.. watch what bush does
bottom line, bush said that to calm the situation down, and to prolong this event.. nKorea is near collapse and the longer we wait the better.. time is on our side. watch as the negotiations in seoul go no where.
Posted by: Wesley Dabney on January 14, 2003 11:12 AM
ok.. i guess you can't post code here.. here is the link
