Another example of how Bush is making the world less safe.

[TimeTraveler]

In politics fragile situations tend to explode in your face when you do not handle with care.

 

The Bush administrations foreign policies and use of the media to intimidate the rest of the world is working... But they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions.

 

N. Korea has nukes, and will not disarm them because they are intimidated by the U.S. foreign policies

 

North Korea announced for the first time Thursday it has nuclear weapons, and it rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon, saying the bombs are protection against an increasingly hostile United States.

 

Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?

[blike]

Another example of someone attributing all the world's woes to Bush. As someone on another forum pointed out, that's like gangsters claiming they have guns to protect themselves from the police.

 

This has happened before. Pull away from talks, claim to have nukes, resume talks when enough foreign aid is offered. Repeat.

[TimeTraveler]

Another example of someone attributing all the world's woes to Bush.

 

I'm not attributing all the worlds woes to Bush, just pointing out how his administration has failed in foreign policy.

 

Remember I am pretty much nuetral when it comes to politics, I don't know the difference between left and right, republican and democrat, nor do I care to. I call it how I see it.

 

When you label countries in an "Axis of Evil" and clearly show your intentions of toppling those countries unless they conform to the way you want them to be, you are instigating more terrorism then there was to begin with.

 

Also a thing to note is there is a difference between Bush and the Bush administration. In both my posts I say Bush administration, there is no direct hatred towards Bush from me, he is just a puppet on a string for several key members in his administration.

 

This has happened before. Pull away from talks, claim to have nukes, resume talks when enough foreign aid is offered. Repeat.

 

While I don't know the validity of this I trust your knowledge of politics so I will assume this is the case, however you have also got to see N. Korea's point of veiw towards the Bush administrations foreign policy. It does seem very hostile, and very publicly so. Is it necessary to make threats on countries repeatedly using the media as your tool to get the world to back you? Is that diplomacy?

[budullewraagh]

actually, blike, north korea gave us options before.

 

they said that if we gave them a document stating we would not attack them (without significant reason: ie in the name of "counterterrorism" which is just a stupid excuse) that they would not produce nukes. they had their reactors ready, but they decided to give us the option. when bush decided to be a fool and refused to sign anything and then attacked iraq for no reason (while un inspectors were checking for wmds with unrestricted access) they said "hey, let's go all cold war on them and produce the great deterrent!" and so, we have created another nuclear power.

[Hellbender]

great. *zips up lead-lined jumpsuit*

[Tetrahedrite]

Some right leaning people believe Bush can do no wrong. And its sad for them, and sad for their country.

[Silencer]

Heads up: I'm quite conservative and support Bush.

 

That doesn't mean I think that North Korea should have been labeled as it was. Not saying that it's not true, but it wasn't really necessary or helpful.

 

That also doesn't change the fact that Kim Jong Il is the whiny little child of the world. He can't get what he wants so he's making a fus. Unfortunately, his toys are nuclear bombs.

 

My solution is a pretty direct, typical conservative one. Obviously invading is out because he would just fire the nukes on our soldiers, and we would have to fight a standing army of over a million crazy asians. We, however, have lots of nukes that can hit any point on this planet. What are the chances that the north koreans could detect our nukes coming and retaliate? Would their nukes even work? They admitted that they haven't been tested, and for all we know they don't even exists. And even if he lets one go on South Korea, tough.

 

Sure, there would be a lot of people dieing in that situation, possibly including innocents in other nations. But as far as I see it, better them than us, and the North Korean might as well be dead living under that maniac anyway.

 

All in all, Kim Jong Il is doing his best to limit our options when it comes to dealing with his country. He thinks that we will be forced to cooperate, but I don't think that Bush will give him that honor. Hopefully he will continue to pursue his goal of eliminating evil, even with all of the critiscism directed at the war in Iraq.

[budullewraagh]

with all due respect that is totally destructive and without reason.

 

you think it's up to us to decide whether or not the north koreans should live?

what threat is kim jong il to anyone?

 

yeah, he's not too nice to his people, but that doesn't mean we're going to nuke him.

 

plus china will rape us.

 

nuclear fallout, anyone?

[-Demosthenes-]

Nuke north Karea? Nukes are what the US is trying to prevent. But nukes in the hands of Radical governments, and a government that has more power in a fewer amount of poeple, are dangerous. It would be important to find a way to disarm them.

[-Demosthenes-]

It doesn't sound like they are doing too well.

The nation has suffered its tenth year of food shortages because of a lack of arable land, collective farming, weather-related problems, and chronic shortages of fertilizer and fuel. Massive international food aid deliveries have allowed the regime to escape mass starvation since 1995-96, but the population remains the victim of prolonged malnutrition and deteriorating living conditions. Large-scale military spending eats up resources needed for investment and civilian consumption.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html

And little freedom with a Communist state one-man dictatorship.

[budullewraagh]

they aren't communist

[-Demosthenes-]

What are they?

I'll try and looker deeper I guess, but that's what I found earlier...

[-Demosthenes-]

I looked in various places. I find that the government is very much modeled after the Soviet Union, which libertaed it from China.

I look and I find that all leaders of government belong to the communist Korean Workers' Party. Does this not mean that the government is Comunist? It also says that the government refuses to participate with global free markets. It does show there are small areas with capitalism, mainly the Kaesŏng Industrial Region, but not much.

 

http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/58.htm

The constitution declares that the means of production are owned by state and cooperative organizations.

Is that not the very definition of Communism?

[Hellbender]

I am pretty interested to see where this thread is going to head.......

[Aardvark]

they aren't communist

 

True in a very pedantic manner. They no longer style themselves a Marxist Leninist state but for all intents and purposes North Korea is what we would define as a communist nation. Possibly a definition of Collectivist, Feudal, Militaristic dictatorship might be technically more accurate.

[Aardvark]

In politics fragile situations tend to explode in your face when you do not handle with care.

 

The Bush administrations foreign policies and use of the media to intimidate the rest of the world is working... But they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions.

 

N. Korea has nukes' date=' and will not disarm them because they are intimidated by the U.S. foreign policies[/url']

 

 

 

Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?

 

As the idea that North Korea only has nuclear weapons out of fear of G W Bush is wrong, with regards to North Korea i actually do feel safer.

 

North Korea was very merrily developing its nuclear weapons programme under President Clintons regime. President Clintons response was to bribe them to stop. They took the bribes and then carried on anyway. President Clintons response was to then offer even more bribes.

 

President Bush may not be a genius but he has worked out that that strategy was not working. He hasn't threatened to invade, he's stated that North Korea must change its behaviour first and only then will it get bribes (development aid) and that North Koreas threats will no longer yield it results. In the past North Korea simply had to make a belliocoise statement to get placating concessions.

 

Incidently, people seem to assume that china will automatically support North Korea in all matters. On the contrary, North Korea is a bigger headache for China than it is for the USA. Just look at the map.

[Hellbender]

Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?

 

I know I can't. Besides, amking the world safer for whom is a better question.

[-Demosthenes-]

True in a very pedantic manner. They no longer style themselves a Marxist Leninist state but for all intents and purposes North Korea is what we would define as a communist nation. Possibly a definition of Collectivist, Feudal, Militaristic dictatorship might be technically more accurate.

Then it is also true that the Soviet Union was not communist. Communism as Karl Marx envisioned it has never been prtacticed in reality. The form of communism which was used in the Soviet Union, the communism that was feared during the Cold War, that is the communism that exists in North Korea. The government owns the means of production, the economy is planed by the government, people don't decide anything to do with the economy, the government does. That is actual communism in practice, not fundimental communism.

[Newtonian]

You would think after the mother country of communism collapsed,simply because that system doesnt work.The others would realise and follow suit.However like all dictatorships,wether the people want to or not.They can no longer speak out,sort of you made your bed lay in it.

[-Demosthenes-]

Kinda of. Should we not try to fix it? Do the people enjoy life this way?

[Aardvark]

Then it is also true that the Soviet Union was not communist. Communism as Karl Marx envisioned it has never been prtacticed in reality. The form of communism which was used in the Soviet Union, the communism that was feared during the Cold War, that is the communism that exists in North Korea. The government owns the means of production, the economy is planed by the government, people don't decide anything to do with the economy, the government does. That is actual [/i']communism in practice, not fundimental communism.

 

True.

 

In common parlance North Korea is communist, technically an argument can be had about the exact definition of its political system but it would be pretty pointless.

 

People who start making arguments about whether a country is 'truly' communist tend to be trying to obscure the discussion (i'm not accusing you here).

 

Instead we should be considering how the world should be dealing with North Koreas dangerous behaviour. (unless anyone here is so bold as to actually defend North Koreas behaviour?)

[Hellbender]

Kinda of. Should we not try to fix it? Do the people enjoy life this way?

 

there are many other countries in which the government pretty much makes life miserable for it's citizens. I don't see any worldwide effort to help them. This is usually an excuse to go to war for some other economic reasons. Don't buy into the delusion that we are just tryin to liberate countries like Vietnam and Iraq.

[budullewraagh]

(just to clear this up first)

 

True in a very pedantic manner. They no longer style themselves a Marxist Leninist state but for all intents and purposes North Korea is what we would define as a communist nation. Possibly a definition of Collectivist, Feudal, Militaristic dictatorship might be technically more accurate.

feudalism is not at all like communism. the term "militaristic dictatorship" refers to government, not economics...

north korea's government exploits its economy. that is not communism.

 

BACK ON TOPIC:

 

Instead we should be considering how the world should be dealing with North Koreas dangerous behaviour. (unless anyone here is so bold as to actually defend North Koreas behaviour?)

do i defend their logic and reasoning to acquire nuclear arms? absolutely

[Aardvark]

there are many other countries in which the government pretty much makes life miserable for it's citizens. I don't see any worldwide effort to help them. This is usually an excuse to go to war for some other economic reasons. Don't buy into the delusion that we are just tryin to liberate countries like Vietnam and Iraq.

 

 

Are you saying there shouldn't be a worldwide effort to help these people and that wars should only be fought for economic reasons? And i don't understand the reference to Vietnam.

 

[Aardvark]

do i defend their logic and reasoning to acquire nuclear arms? absolutely

 

 

If they have developed nuclear weapons because of evil aggressive G W Bush, why is it that North Korea was so vigourously developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President?

 

It is transparent that their reasoning that they only have the weapons due to G W Bushs foriegn policy is a lie. I can not see you defending their lies?