At 07:41 PM 1/3/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
> From every indication, Clinton preparing to
>start the second Korean war if N. Korea continued with the plutonium
>production.
People keep saying this now, but it sounds like revisionist history to me.
I've seen the US prepare for military action in the First Gulf War,
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Taliban Afghanistan, and now
again in Iraq. My memories of 1994 recall few to no similarities with
these events in terms of military action. Clinton may have tossed the
idea around in a meeting or something, but the idea was never seriously
pursued.
>A deal was reached. N. Korea would stop the reactor, place the spent fuel
>rods from which weapons grade plutonium could be extracted under UN seal.
>They also agreed to not pursue other means of obtaining atomic bombs.
>
>Part of the deal was that the west would build reactors that could not be
>used to create weapons grade bomb material to replace the ones the N.
>Koreans shut down. I do not consider that a bribe, because the N. Koreans
>are not gaining financially, they are just having their losses inherent in
>complying covered.
Considering the difference in quality between the reactors there was
definitely some gain to the Koreans. But this is quibbling over straws.
Moreover, the oil shipments were definitely bribes.
>But, since you mock this deal, let me ask a couple of questions:
>
>Would you attack N. Korea when this deal was offered, knowing that it is
>likely that Seoul would be bombarded?
I did not mock the deal at the time.
Indeed, I do not mock the deal at this time.
Rather, I mock those people who view the deal as successful, despite the
evidence that it was a complete and utter failure. DPRK said they would
stop building nuclear weapons. Instead, they built two bombs and started
a whole 'nother nuclear weapons program to boot. And we didn't even know.
Moreover, I mock those people who the history of DPRK notwithstand,
essentially want to repeat this policy with Iraq
If people want to criticize Bush's handling of the DPRK situation, they
need to do so in a way that presents a third-way alternative between the
policy we already know to be a failure, and Bush's current policy.
Otherwise, they are just engaging in knee-jerk criticism of Republicans.
>The Clinton administration stopped a
>process that, once it goes back into full swing, can produced 10
>bombs/year. It wasn't an ideal stoppage, but to call it a total failure
>ignores the other options.
The goal was not to limit DPRK to 1-2 bombs instead of 10-20 bombs. The
goal was to never let DPRK get a bomb.
Whether you lose a football game by 3 points or 30 points, you still lose
the football game. The Clinton policy is failed - notwithstanding the
continued longing by some liberals to continue this policy.
>Bush changed things by snubbing the S. Korean government and hinting that
>it wouldn't live up to Clinton's agreement. While I think some of the
>criticism of Bush on the difference between N. Korea and Iraq is rather
>shrill and unwarranted, as people who can read earlier posts can see, his
>record on this matter isn't spotless. At the present time, he seems less
>likely to use the military option than Clinton, but sounding a lot more
>belligerent. I see no point in blustering if one isn't ready to carry
>through.
So, by your own admission then, Bush is acting wisely by not blustering
about war with DPRK when he is not prepared to attack DPRK then?
>I'll give Bush a lot of leeway with N. Korea because his hand was never
>that strong. But, I think it is a mistake to mock Clinton's policy as
>soft, when he was actually more successful and more able and willing to
>risk and wage war than Bush appears to be.
I'm not going to judge Bush on DPRK until the regime change in Iraq is
completed and he can bring the full diplomatic and military resources of
the US to bear on the situation.
At least now we know why the military wanted the guns and manpower to fight
two wars at once for all these years....
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
