# Bush on North Korea

• News
Skyhunter
russ_watters said:
Indeed - he's been busy dealing with a country that Clinton had 8 years to do something about, with little success. :uhh:
Let me see. Clinton was in the process of normalizing relations. The IAEA was monitoring NK nuclear sites. probably not all but enough to significantly curtail any weapons programs. NK was not producing plutonium. And as far as I know, they never tested a nuclear device.

Bush changed policy toward NK almost as soon as he took over the office. Go ahead, blame Clinton for this and say his policies were a failure. And perhaps you are correct, his policy may not have worked, but at least he was getting some positive results. Bush's policy is escalating the situation, unless you think NK testing nukes is a positive development.

russ_watters said:
edit: btw, that's three years (plus a few months) since the current situation started with North Korea pulling out of the NPT.

And why did they pull out? Oh I guess it must have been Clinton's fault.

Russ said:
Turbo-1, you really need to get off your soap-box and start paying attention to what actually happened.

No, Russ, no one is standing on a soap box. This is all from past events. Read below if you do not believe me.

CHARLIE ROSE: What did he say?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: He did -- certainly said that on terrorism, we have to fight terrorism, and he was annoyed at whatever happened. Obviously, everyone was. And he said you -- I want to ask you whether on terrorism, are you with us -- either you are with us or you are against us.

CHARLIE ROSE: Repeating the presidents words?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. Now, I didnt take much time. I said, as far as terrorism is concerned, we are the victims of terrorism, and well fight terrorism. We are ready to fight terrorism. But that was all that we discussed.

Now, as far as Richard Armitage, I didnt talk to him. He didnt ring me up. I got a message, I think it was either on the second or the third day, from my DD ISI, that he had a meeting with Richard Armitage, and he was very rough, and these are the words that he told him.

CHARLIE ROSE: "We will bomb you back to the stone age."

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Unless youre with us."

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. So, these are the facts which I know. Whether Richard Armitage said those or not, I dont know.

CHARLIE ROSE: We have a conflict now. You have what your intelligence chief said to you.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. Thats what Ive written.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Stone age" is what he said; bomb you back to the stone age.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Exactly what Ive written there.

CHARLIE ROSE: Richard Armitage says I may have used tough language, but I would never say that, because I didnt have the authority to say that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, come on. How do you - how do you -- somebody is not .

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Speaking the truth.

CHARLIE ROSE: Not you, because youre not party to it.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes, Im speaking the truth. I know what was told to me.

CHARLIE ROSE: Told to you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And have you called your intelligence person and said, well, Armitage says he didnt say that? Thats what you told me, whats the problem?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: No, no, I didnt do that. I didnt do that. No. I didnt --- I dont -- I really dont want to make it an issue. Why should we make this an issue?

CHARLIE ROSE: One thing about the Armitage business, you told "60 Minutes" that you felt it wouldve been - it was rude if those words were used, rude, and it did not please you.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Yes. Yes, of course. Yes, they were rude. My own mental make-up, frankly, is to confront. I have been - I have been taught confrontation. Ive been trained to confront. So my first reaction obviously is to an offensive statement, counter-offensive.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why didnt you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: But then .

CHARLIE ROSE: Or did you?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: Well, I dont know. I must have said something rude also, but I didnt mean to go and tell him this exactly. But when -- I think when states are involved, when national issues or regional or maybe international situations come up, personal bravado is -- I think leadership, it defines a leader to put personal bravado aside and think of bigger than themselves.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, even the president said he may have used the wrong language at times over the last five years.

Amp1
Quote:(turbo)
This administration has firmly rejected diplomacy in many instances...
(Russ)
Could you please cite one for me?

How bout Iraq..., My reasoning for why the current admin's stance is so stand- offish is: 1) Our military is stretched to thin {with the situation worsening in Iraq & Afghanistan} 2) The US has lost a great deal of credibility internationally, 3) Bush is apprehensive,possibly, about what could happen with 1 on 1 talks between the US and NK.{ie, The US losing Face,slang term - getting dis'd} 4) Bush and/or members of his admin are not really as concerned about NK as the public is led to believe. 5) The admin really is hog tied about what policy(ies) to pursue.

Bystander
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Might be useful if the participants would state their definitions of "diplomacy;" it's more than a little obvious that some are using the "social definition," while others are using the "technical definition."

Edit: (append) Kissinger talking tough and giving everything away; Harriman talking "soft" and giving everything away; Gromyko talking tough and giving nothing away; Ribbentrop and Molotov talking "soft" and giving nothing away --- respectively, examples of bad "technical diplomacy," bad "social diplomacy," good "technical diplomacy," and "good" social (and technical) diplomacy.

Last edited:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
North Koreans Arm Ethiopians as U.S. Assents
NYTimes - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/world/africa/08ethiopia.html

WASHINGTON, April 7 — Three months after the United States successfully pressed the United Nations to impose strict sanctions on North Korea because of the country’s nuclear test, Bush administration officials allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from the North, in what appears to be a violation of the restrictions, according to senior American officials.

The United States allowed the arms delivery to go through in January in part because Ethiopia was in the midst of a military offensive against Islamic militias inside Somalia, a campaign that aided the American policy of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.

. . . .

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, as the administration has made counterterrorism its top foreign policy concern, the White House has sometimes shown a willingness to tolerate misconduct by allies that it might otherwise criticize, like human rights violations in Central Asia and antidemocratic crackdowns in a number of Arab nations.

It is also not the first time that the Bush administration has made an exception for allies in their dealings with North Korea. In 2002, Spain intercepted a ship carrying Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen.
Hmmmm!

Last edited:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Astro, could you throw in the link to the article?

BobG
Homework Helper
Astro, could you throw in the link to the article?

North Korea sells arms to Ethiopia with U.S. OK

John Bolton was right about something for once.

It does reflect a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy, but this particular deal hurts anti-nuclear proliferation more than it helps in Somalia.

Not to deflect this thread, and maybe it should become a new one addressing my question which is: has there been any instance in the past 100 years where we supported a gov't that was socialist or communist? By supported I do not mean providing financial aid or other inducements? I mean simply engaging in reasonable negotiations without threat of force, like you might with a neighbor across the fence in the backyard. Heaven help me, i don't see it. I remember the SALT talks with USSR, which might remotely fall under this definition. Help me, because I have seen neither a peace dividend nor a more stable world after USSR ceased to be the bad guy. Hell now the French and Germans are bad guys cuz they don't completely accept our positions on foreign policy. Proliferation via Packistan has made the world more dangerous. Now they are a friend with even greater exchange of technology in the offing.

The Irani's are now trumpeting their 300 centrifuges to produce "energy".
Where did we go wrong?

Gold Member
The Irani's are now trumpeting their 300 centrifuges to produce "energy".
Where did we go wrong?
We have gone wrong every time monied interests in control of aspects of our government have chosen profit and expediency instead of ethics, morality, and sound policies regarding the future of the human race. Whenever a politician tells us that we must aggressively oppose another country on the basis of ideology or some perceived threat, it's time to take off the blinders and start following the money. Jingoism and flag-waving are the clearest signs that our politicians are engaging in behavior that is detrimental to most of us, and financially beneficial to their handlers.