Report: North Korea tests nuclear weapon

[Rex Kickass]

Ummm, in this case - failure of US aims absolutely are the President's fault. His foreign policy led us to this moment in time. He has had six years to try to correct the situation in North Korea and has done nothing.

 

I was in Europe in the summer of 1994 and when Jimmy Carter went to North Korea, there was a palpable sense that we were days away from war on the Korean peninsula if North Korea crossed the red line. He didn't and we didn't go to war.

 

The Bush administration didn't act on North Korea in 2002 when they tried the same gambit. The Bush administration rejected the same offer they made to Iran a few months ago when it was presented to them as a Clinton-era agreement in 2001.

 

Of course, I'm sure you'd love to blame Clinton or the media for this too - because their your bogeymen of choice. And that's fine.

 

But a North Korean nuke test is not in our best interest. And our policy to prevent it sure didn't work. So that would be a failure. And there's only been one President's watch since the Agreed Framework was declared dead. And he's the one who declared it dead. So you be the judge about who's fault it is.

[southsider2k5]

Ummm, in this case - failure of US aims absolutely are the President's fault. His foreign policy led us to this moment in time. He has had six years to try to correct the situation in North Korea and has done nothing.

 

I was in Europe in the summer of 1994 and when Jimmy Carter went to North Korea, there was a palpable sense that we were days away from war on the Korean peninsula if North Korea crossed the red line. He didn't and we didn't go to war.

 

The Bush administration didn't act on North Korea in 2002 when they tried the same gambit. The Bush administration rejected the same offer they made to Iran a few months ago when it was presented to them as a Clinton-era agreement in 2001.

 

Of course, I'm sure you'd love to blame Clinton or the media for this too - because their your bogeymen of choice. And that's fine.

 

But a North Korean nuke test is not in our best interest. And our policy to prevent it sure didn't work. So that would be a failure. And there's only been one President's watch since the Agreed Framework was declared dead. And he's the one who declared it dead. So you be the judge about who's fault it is.

 

If you want to say that the NK test is a failure on Bush's part, that is fine. John McCain is saying there is plenty of history to go around, along with plenty of blame. If you are going to blame the Bush administration for that, I guess you are willing to call Clinton's policies a failure because both Pakistan and India managed to go nuclear on his watch, right? No a nuclear NK isn't in our, nor anyone elses, interests. But neither is propping up a murderous regime, which you can damned well bet that Bush would get blamed for if he built them a light water reactor, that was converted under the next President's administration and used to go nuclear at that time instead. It would be his fault for appeasement is exactly what we would hear. I happen to believe this history in NK of not negotiating in good faith is a pretty damned good thing to remember when people are wanting us to give them stuff in exchange for not blowing up the world. I truely believe even if we had bribed them, they would have still found a reason to go nuclear. They have a history of trying to join the nuclear club, why would we believe them now, or ever, when they say otherwise?

[Rex Kickass]

If you want to say that the NK test is a failure on Bush's part, that is fine. John McCain is saying there is plenty of history to go around, along with plenty of blame. If you are going to blame the Bush administration for that, I guess you are willing to call Clinton's policies a failure because both Pakistan and India managed to go nuclear on his watch, right? No a nuclear NK isn't in our, nor anyone elses, interests. But neither is propping up a murderous regime, which you can damned well bet that Bush would get blamed for if he built them a light water reactor, that was converted under the next President's administration and used to go nuclear at that time instead. It would be his fault for appeasement is exactly what we would hear. I happen to believe this history in NK of not negotiating in good faith is a pretty damned good thing to remember when people are wanting us to give them stuff in exchange for not blowing up the world. I truely believe even if we had bribed them, they would have still found a reason to go nuclear. They have a history of trying to join the nuclear club, why would we believe them now, or ever, when they say otherwise?

 

I think Clinton should take responsibility for allowing Pakistan to go nuclear. It's a horrible development and we're damn lucky that we haven't taken a serious toll for doing so yet. It's also forced us to prop up Musharraf who is a dictator, not a nice guy, and plays both sides of the terror game. I'll go so far as to say that Clinton's South Asia policy as it applied to the Pakistan/India policy was a massive failure until Pakistan went nuclear. Fortunately, the tenets of MAD with India has allowed this problem to stabilize, provided that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal remains secure.

 

A nuclear North Korea forces us to do the same. Now, for our own protection, we are forced to make sure that any North Korean government disintegration is done as responsibly as possible for fear of a nuclear arsenal being put in the wrong hands in the last, desperate moment of a regime fighting for survival. Might North Korea get a few extra million dollars for wheat, power or steaks and big sunglasses for Kim Jong Il? Yes, but the alternative to nuclear blackmail is a nuclear North Korea. I'll take the blackmail anyday.

[NorthSideSox72]

If you want to say that the NK test is a failure on Bush's part, that is fine. John McCain is saying there is plenty of history to go around, along with plenty of blame. If you are going to blame the Bush administration for that, I guess you are willing to call Clinton's policies a failure because both Pakistan and India managed to go nuclear on his watch, right? No a nuclear NK isn't in our, nor anyone elses, interests. But neither is propping up a murderous regime, which you can damned well bet that Bush would get blamed for if he built them a light water reactor, that was converted under the next President's administration and used to go nuclear at that time instead. It would be his fault for appeasement is exactly what we would hear. I happen to believe this history in NK of not negotiating in good faith is a pretty damned good thing to remember when people are wanting us to give them stuff in exchange for not blowing up the world. I truely believe even if we had bribed them, they would have still found a reason to go nuclear. They have a history of trying to join the nuclear club, why would we believe them now, or ever, when they say otherwise?

Just to clarify... India joined the nuclear club in the 1970's. And frankly, I don't think we cared enough about India one way or the other then to have done much about it. India was too busy straddling the East/West line during the Cold War to be pushed away from the Nuclear table.

[Rex Kickass]

In the 1970's, India was seen as allying with the Soviet Union generally. Pakistan was vascillating between east and west, depending on who was in power.

[NorthSideSox72]

In the 1970's, India was seen as allying with the Soviet Union generally. Pakistan was vascillating between east and west, depending on who was in power.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The U.S. was pulling Pakistan towards the west because they figured out that India wasn't going to side one way OR the other. They were going to use their strategic position to get as much technology, military and otherwise, from both sides as possible. And they did it. In fact, I've read at least one book that made a pretty good case that this exact tactic resulted in helping their 2-decade tech boom along greatly.

 

The U.S. relationship with India and Pakistan was sort of a specialty of mine in the foreign policy portions of my undergraduate studies.

[kapkomet]

You know what? George W. Bush has done a lot of s*** wrong, and you see me say that quite a bit too, if you read what I say ... but I get sick and damn tired of seeing every f***ing article suggest that nothing was Clinton's fault and everything is Bush's fault, and that article was EXACTLY that. It's bulls***.

 

EVERYONE from 1953 on has choked the chicken on North Korea, IMO. But, it sure sounds good, as Rex noted, to say that Bush has allowed it ALL to happen over the last six years, and Clinton's s*** smells like roses, too. (Rex I know that wasn't YOUR point, but it surely was in the Slate article). That's why I put my comment.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sorry Kap, but John McCain said that Bill Clinton had a completely failed policy.

 

Clinton was a few days away from going to WAR with North Korea.

 

Al Gore didn't blame George Bush for the Embassy Bombings in 1998 when he was on the campaign trail. John McCain blamed Bill Clinton for North Korea going nuclear in 2006.

 

This column is a response to those comments. And the truth is that Clinton did something real - and in the end pretty successful, and some people just don't want to admit it.

[kapkomet]

Clinton was a few days away from going to WAR with North Korea.

BS. I don't beleive that, but I think they wanted people to think that.

 

As many are suggesting, why would Bush INTENTIONALLY let NK do what they are doing?

[NorthSideSox72]

BS. I don't beleive that, but I think they wanted people to think that.

 

As many are suggesting, why would Bush INTENTIONALLY let NK do what they are doing?

He wouldn't - anymore than Clinton did.

 

This is both the key difference and the reason for my previous post. Its true that Bush and Clinton took different tacks on the situation - and neither were successful. Also, neither were individually responsible for the situation at hand. If I had to say which was more to blame between those two... I'd go with Clinton. If someone asked.

 

But instead of asking, you immediately labeled the article Bush-bashing and made it sound like everyone here was blaming Bush for this mess. No one here did such a thing. The article simply tried to refute McCain's insinuation that it was Clinton's fault. That was the reason for my post.

 

I really hope that one of the candidates or President in 2008 has the courage to stand up and do something OTHER than take one gutter or the other on the Iraq debate. Blindly supporting the failed policies under Bush is as mindless as screaming "we must leave now!" in the face of all logic. Yeah, the U.S. screwed the pooch royally in Iraq. No, we cannot leave, unless we want utter chaos in the Middle East. We're in it now for the long haul.

[kapkomet]

No, NSS, I didn't say everyone HERE said that (at least in this thread... ), my comment was directly related back to the Slate article.

[southsider2k5]

I'm sorry Kap, but John McCain said that Bill Clinton had a completely failed policy.

 

Clinton was a few days away from going to WAR with North Korea.

 

Al Gore didn't blame George Bush for the Embassy Bombings in 1998 when he was on the campaign trail. John McCain blamed Bill Clinton for North Korea going nuclear in 2006.

 

This column is a response to those comments. And the truth is that Clinton did something real - and in the end pretty successful, and some people just don't want to admit it.

 

A little perspective on this... John McCain didn't give this speech in a vaccuum. This speech was a response to another speech by Hillary Clinton that she gave on the campaign trail only taking W to task for NK. I think McCain's response wasn't to say that W didn't do anything wrong, so much as remind Hillary that Bill's record on NK wasn't exactly flawless either.

 

He wouldn't - anymore than Clinton did.

 

This is both the key difference and the reason for my previous post. Its true that Bush and Clinton took different tacks on the situation - and neither were successful. Also, neither were individually responsible for the situation at hand. If I had to say which was more to blame between those two... I'd go with Clinton. If someone asked.

 

But instead of asking, you immediately labeled the article Bush-bashing and made it sound like everyone here was blaming Bush for this mess. No one here did such a thing. The article simply tried to refute McCain's insinuation that it was Clinton's fault. That was the reason for my post.

 

I really hope that one of the candidates or President in 2008 has the courage to stand up and do something OTHER than take one gutter or the other on the Iraq debate. Blindly supporting the failed policies under Bush is as mindless as screaming "we must leave now!" in the face of all logic. Yeah, the U.S. screwed the pooch royally in Iraq. No, we cannot leave, unless we want utter chaos in the Middle East. We're in it now for the long haul.

 

That last paragraph is solid. As somewhat of an idealist, I would love to hear that happen, but I know better. Any major canditate is going to toe the line.

[southsider2k5]

This was a cool pic. it is a satilite image of the Koreas at nighttime, showing the amount of electricity that each has on.

 

 

NK is actually switched off of the power grid each night at 9pm, well except for you know who's place...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

[southsider2k5]

Poor Il might miss out on Congac, jet skis

 

[Rex Kickass]

I gotta say, from what Ive read, Im pretty impressed with Boltons ability to work with other security council members on this issue to develop a sanction plan that might have some effect without further antagonizing the situation.

[southsider2k5]

I gotta say, from what Ive read, Im pretty impressed with Boltons ability to work with other security council members on this issue to develop a sanction plan that might have some effect without further antagonizing the situation.

 

And that is my problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. Kim Jong Il sets off what he calls a nuclear device, and we are the ones who have to do something about it, without further antagonizing the situation. That is just insane. The guy threatens the his neighbors, shoots missles over other countries, and then threatens war when that same country doesn't want to trade with him anymore... Yet we are the ones who have to not make it any worse. Geesh.

[NorthSideSox72]

And that is my problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. Kim Jong Il sets off what he calls a nuclear device, and we are the ones who have to do something about it, without further antagonizing the situation. That is just insane. The guy threatens the his neighbors, shoots missles over other countries, and then threatens war when that same country doesn't want to trade with him anymore... Yet we are the ones who have to not make it any worse. Geesh.

To be fair, his neighbors ARE doing something about it. A lot, actually. Japan has changed policy, is doing their own embargo and trade sanctions independently, and are talking about military changes. South Korea, of course, is doing all sorts of things. China called for penalties and has volunteered to cut off certain supplies... although they have been less aggresive in that vein than other regional nations.

 

Ultimately, being their biggest neighbor and being on the security council, I am sure China will have as much input in the UN process as anyone.

[Rex Kickass]

And that is my problem with this whole thing in a nutshell. Kim Jong Il sets off what he calls a nuclear device, and we are the ones who have to do something about it, without further antagonizing the situation. That is just insane. The guy threatens the his neighbors, shoots missles over other countries, and then threatens war when that same country doesn't want to trade with him anymore... Yet we are the ones who have to not make it any worse. Geesh.

 

The alternative is Seoul on fire and 35,000 US troops stationed in South Korea dead. Yeah, we HAVE to do something. Get us out of South Korea is the other alternative.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The alternative is Seoul on fire and 35,000 US troops stationed in South Korea dead. Yeah, we HAVE to do something. Get us out of South Korea is the other alternative.

 

 

I dont even think we should be in S. Korea anyway. Their army is over 600,000 strong and is an order of magnitude more well equipped than their northern counterparts. This is not 1950 my friends. Pull the U.S. troops out of there and use massive air strikes to support the South in case of invasion.

 

Also.........

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/

 

Looks like there was no radiation detected from the blast. Methinks they set off a really big conventional bomb.

 

 

Nevertheless it is time to squeeze these guys with sanctions. They will fold cause they know they have absolutely zero chance of winning a war.

[Rex Kickass]

I think its a ruse. Classic socialist showmanship of weapons systems that don't really exist.

[SoxFan562004]

I think its a ruse. Classic socialist showmanship of weapons systems that don't really exist.

You may be on to something, preliminary tests are showing no proof in the air. On cnn.com front page. Nothing conclusive, but interesting.

[Rex Kickass]

They probably have atomic weaponry but not nuclear. My guess is that their program is overstated as to what they actually have, the one person that can help us determine that conclusively is AQ Khan, who is under the protection of Pakistan.

[southsider2k5]

I dont even think we should be in S. Korea anyway. Their army is over 600,000 strong and is an order of magnitude more well equipped than their northern counterparts. This is not 1950 my friends. Pull the U.S. troops out of there and use massive air strikes to support the South in case of invasion.

 

Also.........

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/

 

Looks like there was no radiation detected from the blast. Methinks they set off a really big conventional bomb.

Nevertheless it is time to squeeze these guys with sanctions. They will fold cause they know they have absolutely zero chance of winning a war.

 

There is one reason why I really believe NK would never invade the south, and that is they saw how their southern brothers lived, it would cause a revolution in the north.

 

 

I think its a ruse. Classic socialist showmanship of weapons systems that don't really exist.

 

The more I read, the more I agree 100%. I think NK is on the verge of collapse and Il was trying to use this as a ruse to get some concessionss to inject directly into his economy. The biggest mistake we can make right now is letting them have something for this.

 

 

LMAO!

 

Even better the blow ups of satalite pics from the site show the Nuke techs playing volleyball. I don't know about you, but I think a great place to play volleyball is on top of a place where you just detonated a nuke...

 

This "test" is officially a complete joke right now.

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

There is one reason why I really believe NK would never invade the south, and that is they saw how their southern brothers lived, it would cause a revolution in the north.

The more I read, the more I agree 100%. I think NK is on the verge of collapse and Il was trying to use this as a ruse to get some concessionss to inject directly into his economy. The biggest mistake we can make right now is letting them have something for this.

LMAO!

 

Even better the blow ups of satalite pics from the site show the Nuke techs playing volleyball. I don't know about you, but I think a great place to play volleyball is on top of a place where you just detonated a nuke...

 

This "test" is officially a complete joke right now.

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

 

 

LOL!!!! Thats pure comedy gold right there. Nothing to see here kiddies......move on.

[Rex Kickass]

Except, nope. Might have been real after all.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/1...mple/index.html