N. Korea Agrees to Halt Nuclear Arms Program

I guess it just hits close to home for me so I get a little touchy.In summary, the topic discussed is whether or not George W. Bush ridiculed John Kerry for his plan to have multi-lateral talks with North Korea about their nuclear program. It is mentioned that this issue came up in the pre-election debates and Bush always seemed to mock Kerry's approach. However, now the current administration is successful in their approach which makes the conversation participants question why Bush ridiculed Kerry in the first place. The conversation then shifts to discussing the current situation with North Korea and their demands for a reactor in exchange for getting rid of their nuclear weapons.
  • #1
Tarheel
I was just reading about this.

Am I confused or did Gee Dub NOT ridicule Kerry for his plan to have multi-lateral talks with N Korea about their Nuclear Program?

It came up several times in the pre-election debates and each time Bush smirked and did that chuckle [sarcasm]that makes him look so smart[/sarcasm] at the fact that Kerry planned to have anything OTHER than Bi-lateral talks with N Korea.

When given a chance to respond Bush always stated flatly "It just won't work!" and then lept immediatly into mocking Kerry being open to entering into the Kyoto accord. (sp?)

Now to see this administration has done what they said was a dumb idea, and the resulting success, makes me say WHA?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here is one link to an article on the topic: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9375104/

The key will be the international weapon inspections, with the help of the UN. This solution is possible because it is not the usual unilateral mentality, and because the UN is still around.
 
  • #3
Tarheel said:
I was just reading about this.

Am I confused or did Gee Dub NOT ridicule Kerry for his plan to have multi-lateral talks with N Korea about their Nuclear Program?

It came up several times in the pre-election debates and each time Bush smirked and did that chuckle [sarcasm]that makes him look so smart[/sarcasm] at the fact that Kerry planned to have anything OTHER than Bi-lateral talks with N Korea.

When given a chance to respond Bush always stated flatly "It just won't work!" and then lept immediatly into mocking Kerry being open to entering into the Kyoto accord. (sp?)

Now to see this administration has done what they said was a dumb idea, and the resulting success, makes me say WHA?
That's not how I recall it. Kerry was speaking for bilateral talks in addition to multi-lateral talks (no idea how that works :confused:). Bush was arguing for multi-lateral talks and the importance of bring the other Asian countries into the diplomatic equation.
 
  • #4
Gokul43201 said:
That's not how I recall it. Kerry was speaking for bilateral talks in addition to multi-lateral talks (no idea how that works :confused:). Bush was arguing for multi-lateral talks and the importance of bring the other Asian countries into the diplomatic equation.
Correct. Though Bush defended preemption in regard to Iraq, he was favorable to a multinational approach to N. Korea and Iran (though he seems to be reverting to his Iraq tactics where Iran is concerned). Kerry argued that Bush had done nothing for two years so the situation had become worse:

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.

Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.

And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.

While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.

That happened on this president's watch.

Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

If one has time to read these, it is interesting in retrospect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
SOS2008 said:
Though Bush defended preemption in regard to Iraq...
I'm sorry if this comes off as nit-picking but this is one thing that really gets my goat; he didn't preempt anything. The attack on Iraq was arguably preventive, but not even by Bush's own words was it a response to an imminent threat.

As for the news, all I can say is; yay! We get our fears eased by inspections and disarmament and N.Korea gets its power, seems like everyone wins as long as this holds up.
 
  • #6
Tarheel said:
Am I confused or did Gee Dub NOT ridicule Kerry for his plan to have multi-lateral talks with N Korea about their Nuclear Program?

Other way around.

The key was to get CHINA CHINA CHINA in on this. Hell bi-lat. talks are even good enough as long as that other side was China, they are key to this whole situation.
 
  • #7
kyleb said:
I'm sorry if this comes off as nit-picking but this is one thing that really gets my goat; he didn't preempt anything. The attack on Iraq was arguably preventive, but not even by Bush's own words was it a response to an imminent threat.
kyleb, you are right, and I agree. That was the term Bush used in the debate.
 
  • #8
How did this turn into Iraq so quickly...
 
  • #9
Pengwuino said:
How did this turn into Iraq so quickly...
The "axis of evil" tend to be discussed in comparative ways?
 
  • #10
It appears N Korea has had a change of mind.
NUCLEAR DEAL DEMANDS

North Korea says it will not get rid of its nuclear weapons unless the United States gives it a reactor to generate electricity.

The country's Foreign Minister made the demand just a day after agreeing to disarm in return for pledges of aid and security.


Both the US and Japan say North Korea's actions are unacceptable.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13442077,00.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the significance of North Korea agreeing to halt their nuclear arms program?

The significance of this agreement is that it marks a major step towards denuclearization in the Korean peninsula and could potentially lead to improved diplomatic relations between North Korea and other countries.

2. What led to North Korea's decision to halt their nuclear arms program?

There are a few factors that may have influenced North Korea's decision, including increased international pressure and sanctions, diplomatic efforts by other countries, and potentially a desire to improve their economy and standard of living.

3. How will this agreement be enforced?

The details of how this agreement will be enforced are still being worked out, but it is likely that there will be a combination of inspections and verification measures in place to ensure that North Korea is complying with the agreement.

4. What are the potential implications of North Korea halting their nuclear arms program?

The potential implications are vast, including improved relations with other countries, potential economic benefits for North Korea, and increased stability in the region. However, there are also concerns about whether North Korea will fully comply with the agreement and the long-term effects on global nuclear disarmament efforts.

5. What does this mean for the future of North Korea's nuclear weapons?

While this agreement is a positive step towards denuclearization, it is important to note that it is not a complete dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons. The future of their nuclear program will depend on their continued compliance with the agreement and potential future negotiations with other countries.

Similar threads

News What do you think about the deal with North Korea?
    • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top