north korea launch missile

[GrandOldTeam]

North Korea has a long and fairly succesful tradition of brinkmanship with regards to nuclear related activity. Every time they need petrol or food or whatever it is to keep their economy from flatlining, they indulge a little activity like this just to remind the world they still exist.

To a degree it's not really Obama's problem. The major influence on North Korea is China, and to a degree Pyongyang is beholden to them.

I think the idea that North Korea would seriously consider using a nuclear weapon is fanciful. There's no real situation where attacking with nuclear weapons gasins you any advantaqe, because you're reduced to a pile of radioactive ash about an hour later (unless you've got some kind of missile defence shield like the US is building, which DOES give you the ability to attack whoever you want). You have nuclear weapons to ensure that no-one ever thinks about using one on you, and to stop anyone overthrowing your government from outside. The North Koreans aren't stupid, and don't have a deathwish.

And with regard to Bush "knowing how to deal with North Korea" the stance he took with probably had the effect of driving them down the nuclear route. If you hunt around on google then there's plenty of articles relating to how poorly negotiations with the Koreans were handled in the Bush era.

I'd trust facts over opinionated anti Bush articles;

_ Oct. 15, 2006: U.N. Security Council adopts Resolution 1718 condemning test, imposing sanctions and banning North Korea from activities related to its nuclear weapons program, including "their means of delivery and related materials."
_ July 14, 2007: North Korea shuts down its main Yongbyon reactor, later starts disabling it.
_ June 27, 2008: North Korea destroys cooling tower at Yongbyon.

 

[wellillwill]

Under Clinton there was an agreement for Korea to dismantle its nuclear programe (signed in 1994), to whit

2 light water reactors for civilian power generation
500,000 tons of free oil
Enhanced diplomatic relations between the two countries
Some degree of loosening of the economic embargo.

Now, when the Bush government came to power, they immediately reversed this policy, saying that there would be no concessions to North Korea until they dismantled their nuclear programme. There were also further unfounded accusations of North Korea participating in counterfeiting of dollars and other shady financial pratices.

"An influential coalition has consisted of Pentagon officials and advisers around Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, officials of Vice President Cheney's office, and proliferation experts in the State Department and White House led by former Undersecretary of State John Bolton. They reportedly oppose negotiations with North Korea, favor the issuance of demands for unilateral North Korean concessions on nuclear and other military issues, and advocate an overall U.S. strategy of isolating North Korea diplomatically and through economic sanctions and bringing about a collapse of the North Korean regime."

This is taken from a research report for Congress September 7 2006, so hardly anti-bush propaganda.

It's no coincidence that it was under the Bush presidency that North Korea restarted it's nuclear programme, built it's nuclear weapon and tested it, and there's a real argument that the increased activity on this front is directly related to a particularly hostile regime in Washington, that openly talked of removing the regime in Pyongyang.

 

[NeoNaoNeo]

Oh they're a bloody tinpot nation. Nothing will come of it.

By the time they perfect a missile so that they can shoot it 5 yards into South Korea we'll have already colonised planets around Andromeda.

 

[Blue_in_london]

These kind of nations always test a new leader when they get into office - to be expected.

Like the guys who attempted to blow up a car in London and Glasgow when Brown first got in.

It's not about what's just happened, it's how he (Obama) responds.

 

[TX Bill]

Bush was a lame-duck for the last year of his presidency. Would the UN have even paid that much notice to him if he was still here? Remember, the UN is made up of 26 states, not just America.

Obama has just got a pet elected as general secretary (Rasmussen (the ******)). Let's see how the lot of them deal with things. It's way too early to claim that Obama is the weaker of the two regarding dealing with so-called rogue states.

No it's not. Not at all.

You see, Obama has a "D" after his name. That stands for "Democrat."

He'll undoubtedly take a page out of the Democratic playbook on how to deal with rogue nations/terrorist supporting nations (see: Carter, Jimmy. Albright, Madeline. Clinton, William J.). That means endless diplomacy followed by more fruitless talking with nations who have no interest in world peace and living in harmony with their neighbors.

Unless you think otherwise and that he'll somehow show some backbone that all of his recent predecessors have lacked.

I hope that he does. Honestly, I'd would love Obama to come down hard on nations like North Korea but history isn't on his side in this area.

 

[chicoazul]

No it's not. Not at all.

You see, Obama has a "D" after his name. That stands for "Democrat."

He'll undoubtedly take a page out of the Democratic playbook on how to deal with rogue nations/terrorist supporting nations (see: Carter, Jimmy. Albright, Madeline. Clinton, William J.). That means endless diplomacy followed by more fruitless talking with nations who have no interest in world peace and living in harmony with their neighbors.

Unless you think otherwise and that he'll somehow show some backbone that all of his recent predecessors have lacked.

I hope that he does. Honestly, I'd would love Obama to come down hard on nations like North Korea but history isn't on his side in this area.

By that virtue though Bill, Bush left you with some huge problems in the world order. Russia for instance.

Going all gung ho is not the way to conduct world politics mate, you're the biggest super power and therefore also have a responsibility to lead, use diplomacy, use your influence.

Being a businessman, you'll know that the better relations with your suppliers the better your business. Politics is, on the most part, is business. Sometimes you have to bare your teeth but I dont think were at this stage with North Korea yet, other countries have a responsibility to pressure North Korea into following protocol too.

Bush had only peddled a bad image and impression of the States around the world. Obama is at least offering hope, look at his work helping broker that deal with the G20 last week. Bush's pigheaded stubborness would have impeded something which has the possibility of assisting the world's economies.

What surprises me, is that some are using this as an opportunity to jump all over Obama's back and write him off.

Lets reserve judgement (for perhaps four years) until he's had an opportunity to resolve some of the problems inherited by the previous President's incompetence, that President who had a little "R" for republican next to his name.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Now this could be a coincidence, but it strikes me as very odd that at the end of tough guy Bush's reign, the world seems a heck of a lot more dangerous than it did when Democrat Clinton was calling the shots. The foreign policy of the last administration has seen an increase in terrorism and the most ridiculously planned war since Vietnam. If people think Bush knew how to handle the 'other' side, god help them.

 

[teppic]

the rocket failed.

while this on the surface seems a good thing... it means there will be a further test no doubt.

also, the fact they did it is going to cause big problems for everyone in the region.

 

[ajax_andy]

So what are you suggesting Obama does?

But as well, you're placing all this on the shoulders of the US. There are other countries that are involved in all of this process. The US can't just do as it pleases.

Doesn't usually stop them.

 

[ajax_andy]

As I said, NK realised under Bush, the UN regulations served as international justification of war should Korea have broken such regulations.

Under Obama, these regulations have been broken. What now?

How many times is it going to be addressed through the UN with calls for an international response?

All this is effectively doing is granting further time to N.Korea. The same "call for international action" principle allowed for the second World War.

So we should go to war with them over this... to avoid war? is that your logic here?

I've a much better idea... why don't we leave other countries alone and stop standing shoulder to shoulder with the most corrupt government on the planet who are basically trying to take over the world on the basis of "terrorism". Which accounts for anyone doing anything that isn't viewed as being on America's side:

Iraq - They have WMD's... oh erm no they dont but the people are living in very repressed conditions and even though their government pose no threat to America we must liberate this oil... err I mean these people
Afganistan - See above but the terrorists have planes and they are weapons of mass destruction... especially if we turn a blind eye while they crash them in to buildings, so we can invade them.
NK launch a missile... has no effect on America... lets attack them

See a pattern emerging?

 

[teppic]

it was a satellite.


tries to manage medium brow sarcasm laced with a touch of indignation*

 

[toffeestillidie]

So we should go to war with them over this... to avoid war? is that your logic here?

I've a much better idea... why don't we leave other countries alone and stop standing shoulder to shoulder with the most corrupt government on the planet who are basically trying to take over the world on the basis of "terrorism". Which accounts for anyone doing anything that isn't viewed as being on America's side:

Iraq - They have WMD's... oh erm no they dont but the people are living in very repressed conditions and even though their government pose no threat to America we must liberate this oil... err I mean these people
Afganistan - See above but the terrorists have planes and they are weapons of mass destruction... especially if we turn a blind eye while they crash them in to buildings, so we can invade them.
NK launch a missile... has no effect on America... lets attack them

See a pattern emerging?

thank you thank you thank you

would have been something if the US invaded north korea over a failed missile test. plus its a bit of a double standard when the US has an entire country within which to test its weapons capabilities.

NK were flexing their muscles, obama didn't bite, thats a win for us in that we didn't escalate a conflict.

they're a failed state, with their level of trade (near 0), their model will be unsustainable. the way to handle it isn't yet another costly war that will only escalate a conflict, its to simply limit their progression of weapons capabilities, cut off avenues of resources (someones dealing to them under the table, finding out who should be top priority), and let them dwindle into nothing. its nice to finally have a president that realizes you can't brute force your way out of every problem

personally, from NK's side, it seems like they would prefer we took the bait and threatened military action, what better way to portray the US as a western aggressor mettling in eastern affairs, and to unite the countries that have already been falling out with the US against us.

 

[teppic]

thank you thank you thank you

would have been something if the US invaded north korea over a failed missile test. plus its a bit of a double standard when the US has an entire country within which to test its weapons capabilities.

NK were flexing their muscles, obama didn't bite, thats a win for us in that we didn't escalate a conflict.

they're a failed state, with their level of trade (near 0), their model will be unsustainable. the way to handle it isn't yet another costly war that will only escalate a conflict, its to simply limit their progression of weapons capabilities, cut off avenues of resources (someones dealing to them under the table, finding out who should be top priority), and let them dwindle into nothing. its nice to finally have a president that realizes you can't brute force your way out of every problem

personally, from NK's side, it seems like they would prefer we took the bait and threatened military action, what better way to portray the US as a western aggressor mettling in eastern affairs, and to unite the countries that have already been falling out with the US against us.

that's pretty good. i'm going to rep that.

 

[Tennessee Blue Mike]

Now this could be a coincidence, but it strikes me as very odd that at the end of tough guy Bush's reign, the world seems a heck of a lot more dangerous than it did when Democrat Clinton was calling the shots. The foreign policy of the last administration has seen an increase in terrorism and the most ridiculously planned war since Vietnam. If people think Bush knew how to handle the 'other' side, god help them.

Believe it is. Bush commanded the respect of the military which in the Clinton adminstration they did not.

Funny you think there is a increase in terrorism. It's always been there you just had to look to find it. Why it's getting heated is we are hitting back in thier back yard and they don't like it. To bad the liberal media keeps thinking the Iraq situation was the most ridiculously planned war because that is the most farthest from the truth. One day the history books will show how close we came to the great oil war of our time and it still may not be over.

Obama will be fine if he uses good judgement. He will let China sort out North Koreas indiscretions.

 

[TX Bill]

By that virtue though Bill, Bush left you with some huge problems in the world order. Russia for instance.

Going all gung ho is not the way to conduct world politics mate, you're the biggest super power and therefore also have a responsibility to lead, use diplomacy, use your influence.

Being a businessman, you'll know that the better relations with your suppliers the better your business. Politics is, on the most part, is business. Sometimes you have to bare your teeth but I dont think were at this stage with North Korea yet, other countries have a responsibility to pressure North Korea into following protocol too.

Bush had only peddled a bad image and impression of the States around the world. Obama is at least offering hope, look at his work helping broker that deal with the G20 last week. Bush's pigheaded stubborness would have impeded something which has the possibility of assisting the world's economies.

What surprises me, is that some are using this as an opportunity to jump all over Obama's back and write him off.

Lets reserve judgement (for perhaps four years) until he's had an opportunity to resolve some of the problems inherited by the previous President's incompetence, that President who had a little "R" for republican next to his name.

This statement makes the erroneous assumption that we (and the UN for that matter) made no attempts whatsoever to resolve the issues with Iraq diplomatically. I can show you resolution after resolution after resolution (all without military force I might add) that had absolutely zero effect on Hussein. None at all.

Are you saying that diplomacy was still an option at that point? Seriously? At what point in your mind does it become evident that diplomatic efforts are ineffective in situations that call for the use of force.

Also, in the same vein, should we, the USA, have tried to work out our differences with the Taliban diplomatically and through endless discussion and UN resolutions?

Bush's "bad image" is due to the fact that he didn't cower to these types of terrorist/rogue nations and actually realized that normal diplomatic procedures don't work with peoples hell bent on destroying democracy through radical religious beliefs, etc....

Incompetence? How many more terrorist attacks did the USA suffer due to Bush's incompetence after 9/11? Answers on a postcard please. And how does Russia all of a sudden become a Bush problem? I've seen a lot of lefties in this country blame Bush for just about everything but I haven't seen Russia on the list. Maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.

But...if you want to start blaming previous administrations for messes that the current administration has to clean up, then I'm confident that you'll 100% agree with me that Bush inherited Clinton's mess in having to deal with radical Islam since Clinton ignored it from day one but I digress. Unless you want to try and argue the point that Clinton did all he could to combat Al Qaeda and the rise of radical Islam on his watch, in which case you'll fail miserably. Not due to you but the track record of the adminstration previous to Bush.

At what point do we wait till we're "at that point" with North Korea? When they've successfully launched a missile, nuclear or otherwise, that hits South Korea, the USA, Japan? I can assure you that after 9/11, there will be no more "waiting to get hit." Believe it. You may not like it and prefer the "Obama approach" to diplomacy but like I said in my last post, Carter, Clinton, Albright, etc... all failed in their diplomatic efforts. Let's pray that Obama somehow gets it right and breaks the miserable track record of the Dems on foreign policy.

It would be good for everyone.