North Korea destroys nuclear reactor tower - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 08:23 AM Thread Starter
hugh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 09:42 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Posts: 204
Vindication of taking a tough stand with the regime instead of using kid gloves, now on to Iran!

Shaw 6412, Hitachi 46F510, Onkyo TXSR603B, XBMC, Squeezebox 3, Harmony 628, Garmin GPS Map 60, Cyclods Evolution
cm_soo is offline  
post #3 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 09:51 AM Thread Starter
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Disagree. After reading up on the situation it is clear that North Korea was happy to do this six years ago right after 9/11 but George Bush opened his big mouth and called NK part of the "axis of evil" and we were left with six years of problems.

The Bush administration escalated this crisis through its inept diplomacy.

This problem should never have happened.
hugh is offline  
post #4 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 09:56 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North York
Posts: 1,870
Agree with hugh. There's no "tough stand" here. No ultimatums were made beyond the usual rhetoric.
NeilN is offline  
post #5 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 10:17 AM
DHC Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ottawa (Orleans), ON
Posts: 8,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by cm_soo
Vindication of taking a tough stand with the regime instead of using kid gloves, now on to Iran!
A tough stand? That's funny!
eljay is offline  
post #6 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 11:36 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 519
To fully appreciate the NK situation, one needs to look past Bush to Clinton and Carter, who signed an agreement with NK. NK would not pursue nuclear weapons and the US would pay a ransom for this. NK took the cash then developed nuclear weapons anyway.

This proves once again in our generation that you can't negotiate with some types of dictators. Bush didn't cause the problem, but by looking at the history you can understand why he was reluctant to sit at the negotiating table with NK again after they had so recently been fleeced.
runnin' is offline  
post #7 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 11:45 AM Thread Starter
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
runnin' you need to review the facts. Here is one article and the facts have been echoed in other articles from other journalists.

North Korea wanted to give up the bomb a long time ago but "hawks" in the Bush administration wanted "regime change" rather than a conciliatory approach and unnecessarily escalated the situation to crisis proportions.

Bush and his administration attitude has always been "your with us or against us" which is an exceedingly juvenile and simplistic approach to solving complex social and political problems.

His approach from 2002 until recently (nothing but the overthrow of the current NK administration would do) was so ludicrous that it was never going to work short of escalating to a nuclear war.
hugh is offline  
post #8 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 11:59 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin'
Bush didn't cause the problem, but by looking at the history you can understand why he was reluctant to sit at the negotiating table with NK again after they had so recently been fleeced.
I'm sure Bush had absolutely no idea about anything to do with North Korea. The man does not read newspapers, is bored by current events in general, and apparently does not even read the reports written for him by his own staff.

"I glance at the headlines just to get a kind of flavor for what's moving," he told Fox News.

"I'm not sure I've ever spoken to anyone at that level who seemed less inquisitive," said David Kay, CIA, chief weapons inspector for the Iraq Survey Group, on his meetings with Bush.

And Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill was told outright that the president would not be expected to read reports. It became obvious, as O'Neill observed, when "Bush did not ask any questions" during their meetings.

The man is a stump. I doubt he could even find NK on a map, let alone formulate a policy decision towards it.
Tom_Joad is offline  
post #9 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 12:05 PM Thread Starter
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Whoa Tom. It was more than just Bush. Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeldt and hawks within the administration probably had more to do with the formulation of policy than Bush himself.

The point is that anyone advocating diplomacy was shuttled out of the whitehouse. (can you say Colin Powell)
hugh is offline  
post #10 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 12:24 PM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 519
Here is some background of both the Clinton(Jimmy Carter) approach, and Bush's knowledge and opposition of the Clinton/Carter agreement.

It was a very poorly structured agreement that only worsened the situation. Bush inherited a mess:

Quote:
Historians Paul Lauren, Gordon Craig and Alexander George point out that the agreement suffered from a number of weaknesses. There was no specific schedule made for reciprocal moves, and the United States was granted a very long time to fulfil its obligations to replace the dangerous graphite-moderated reactors with LWRs.[3] Furthermore, no organization was chosen "to monitor compliance, to supervise implementation...or to make mid-course adjustments that migh become necessary."[3] Finally, other interested nations, like South Korea, China, and Japan, were not included in the negotiations.[3]
Clinton and Carter were too trusting and then ignored the situation, and I now can see some cause for North Korea to be upset at this.
runnin' is offline  
post #11 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 12:25 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
Granted -- Bush couldn't tie his shoes without help. I just didn't want him getting credit for making a decision regarding North Korea, or having anything close to the semblance of an informed opinion about it...even though he has declared himself the "Decider" .

I think everyone realizes at this point that the clueless bonehead has a complete cast and crew to keep the show moving around him.

And yes, Powell bailed after he realized that he'd allowed them to sacrifice his reputation and integrity.
Tom_Joad is offline  
post #12 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 12:45 PM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 519
Quote:
The man is a stump. I doubt he could even find NK on a map, let alone formulate a policy decision towards it.
Actually Tom, Bush did formulate a policy and the 6 Party Talks was something that even Powell could like. I don't think you read my above link, but it shows an even handed new policy towards NK that did not include regime change.
runnin' is offline  
post #13 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 01:27 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
I don't think Bush is capable of formulating a policy. He might've signed it, but I find it hard to believe that he could actively come up with anything on his own. Especially as he spends 1/3 of his time on vacation.

To observe his lightning quick synapse in action, I submit Bush attempting to explain what his concept of tribal sovereignty means:

Tom_Joad is offline  
post #14 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 01:54 PM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: B.C.
Posts: 519
Er... anyway as my link shows, despite the mess Bush inherited, relations with NK are now normalizing. Quite a feat for someone who spends half his time on vacation.
runnin' is offline  
post #15 of 17 (permalink) Old 2008-06-27, 02:14 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,345
If Bush could fix just one of the myriad of messes he created, that would be impressive.
Tom_Joad is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome