If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(Slate) Dumbass John McCain's proposal for how to deal with North Korea sounds an awful like the one the Bush Administration had been using and later abandoned, because, well, it led to North Korea getting nukes   (slate.com) divider line 29
More: Dumbass  

29 Comments   (+0 »)


Fark.com's  Political Inclination Thermometric Analyzer:
Neutral 3.03% Fascist
Archived thread
 
PC LOAD LETTER [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 08:16:24 AM  
I predict some moron will blather on about how it's all Clinton's fault.

It's not.

 
MasterThief [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 08:52:26 AM  
There are still outstanding-and important-questions about North Korea's role in assisting Syria and perhaps Iran in developing a nuclear program. We don't yet know how complete those 18,000 pages are. And nothing has been worked out on how to verify any future North Korean claim that they have destroyed all their nuclear materials.

Other than that, negotiations "worked."

 
Lionel Mandrake [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 09:14:23 AM  
Bush decided, realistically, that demanding dismantlement as a first step was a nonstarter and that a freeze followed by a gradual disabling-prodded by the delivery of free fuel oil and other economic aid-was more feasible and imminently worthwhile.

APPEASER!!

 
Skleenar 2008-05-29 09:28:50 AM  
PC LOAD LETTER: I predict some moron will blather on about how it's all Clinton's fault.

It's not.


In fact, it is debated whether or not N Korea even cheated on the Clinton framework as was alleged by the Bush Administration as their justification for scrapping the deal.

 
Skleenar 2008-05-29 09:31:00 AM  
MasterThief: Other than that, negotiations "worked."

How many atomic tests have the Norks conducted since the negotiations?

I mean, come on. You can't run down the whole idea of negotiations just because the Bush Administration is bad at it.

 
burndtdan 2008-05-29 09:42:57 AM  
Skleenar: MasterThief: Other than that, negotiations "worked."

How many atomic tests have the Norks conducted since the negotiations?

I mean, come on. You can't run down the whole idea of negotiations just because the Bush Administration is bad at it.


APPEASER!

 
jake_lex [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 10:05:33 AM  
The article is also interesting in the way it shows that McCain's thinking on foreign policy really reflects neo-con thinking that's been rejected in the Bush Administration. So, that is, McCain's a truer neo-con right now than just about anyone in the administration, at least since Rummy got booted.

 
MasterThief [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 10:43:28 AM  
Skleenar: In fact, it is debated whether or not N Korea even cheated on the Clinton framework as was alleged by the Bush Administration as their justification for scrapping the deal.


The guy who actually negotiated the deal for Clinton (Robert Galucci) says otherwise.
North Korea had a parallel nuclear weapons program based on enriched uranium instead of plutonium the entire time. And then there's that little matter of North Korean engineers helping Syria build a reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons (which was enough to convince the Israelis that the thing needed to be taken out.)

Skleenar: How many atomic tests have the Norks conducted since the negotiations?

Don't call that little puff of smoke an "atomic test." It was more like a dirty bomb blast - less than a kiloton, and scientists can't even be sure the thing went critical.

I mean, come on. You can't run down the whole idea of negotiations just because the Bush Administration is bad at it.

How about running down the idea of negotiations because we're being played for a bunch of suckers? Or does that make me sound like one of those scary "neocon" boogeymen? ("BURN HIM! BURN THE NEOCON!" "How do you know he is a neocon?" "He turned me into a warmonger!" "A warmonger?" "...I got better." "BURN HIM ANYWAY!")

Look, I appreciate the need for diplomacy, and I think the Bush administration made big mistakes. But this is a classic overcorrection based more on perception than reality.

Personally, I think the better option would have been to wait for the Norks to set off a nuclear test, then let the Chinese figure out that these f*ckers cannot be trusted, and then get China to close off the Northern border while the U.S. blockades the coasts of North Korea. Basically, starve the Kim regime until they cave or the North Korean military (who gets the lion's share of the food the world sends North Korea under Kim's "army first" policy) revolts and overthrows the coiffured midget.

Yeah, it sounds horrible. But unlike negotiations, it would actually solve the problem.

 
Hobodeluxe [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 11:31:10 AM  
I think if I bang my head against this brick wall one more time it's going to give.

 
captain_napalm 2008-05-29 11:31:43 AM  
let's toast with them for photo ops instead (albright you whore) as they take our food, oil, AND continue the nuke work.

/liberals are idiots

 
HotWingConspiracy [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 11:38:09 AM  
I can't see why treating nations like an abusive father treats his kids isn't working.

 
Edsel 2008-05-29 11:38:55 AM  
MasterThief: Personally, I think the better option would have been to wait for the Norks to set off a nuclear test, then let the Chinese figure out that these f*ckers cannot be trusted, and then get China to close off the Northern border while the U.S. blockades the coasts of North Korea. Basically, starve the Kim regime until they cave or the North Korean military (who gets the lion's share of the food the world sends North Korea under Kim's "army first" policy) revolts and overthrows the coiffured midget.

Yeah, it sounds horrible. But unlike negotiations, it would actually solve the problem.


Because supporting a military coup has worked so well for us in the past. And look, this one has the advantage of creating millions of starving civilians as well!

 
KaponoFor3 [recently expired TotalFark] 2008-05-29 11:40:43 AM  
MasterThief: How about running down the idea of negotiations because we're being played for a bunch of suckers? Or does that make me sound like one of those scary "neocon" boogeymen?

You dirty neocon. You should at least TRY to get bamboozled by the party you are negotiating with.

MasterThief: Personally, I think the better option would have been to wait for the Norks to set off a nuclear test, then let the Chinese figure out that these f*ckers cannot be trusted, and then get China to close off the Northern border while the U.S. blockades the coasts of North Korea. Basically, starve the Kim regime until they cave or the North Korean military (who gets the lion's share of the food the world sends North Korea under Kim's "army first" policy) revolts and overthrows the coiffured midget.

That's not a bad idea. A nuclear armed North Korea is a much bigger threat for China and Japan than for the US

 
captain_napalm 2008-05-29 11:40:51 AM  
Edsel: And look, this one has the advantage of creating millions of starving civilians as well!

yes, because they're so well-fed at the moment.

just like iraq was a utopida before we arrived? right, you liberal liars?

 
jat26006 2008-05-29 11:41:29 AM  
Seriously, why is everything a shade of grey? Treat countries like they treat negotiations...

 
ilambiquated 2008-05-29 11:41:43 AM  
We can't invade North Korea. It simply is not an option. Even Bush, who came into office wanting a war to prove his mettle and go down in history as a great 'war president' and cheney, who is pretty much nuts, realize that.

So there are only two options:
1. Negotiate with them
2. Do nothing

Of course, if they start a war, we move in quickly and stomp them. But the potential costs of a preemptive war - turning the peninsula into another Iraq - are too high to seriously consider.

 
ilambiquated 2008-05-29 11:44:32 AM  
captain_napalm: Edsel: And look, this one has the advantage of creating millions of starving civilians as well!

yes, because they're so well-fed at the moment.

just like iraq was a utopida before we arrived? right, you liberal liars?


No,l but

1)It was only one of many troubled countries around the world
2)We went in without a plan to improve the place.

You are essentially claiming, as Wolfowitz claimed, that the only thing wrong with Iraq was Saddam. But you are wrong. Furthermore, the longer we stay the wronger you get, because we are a big part of the problem.

 
captain_napalm 2008-05-29 11:46:16 AM  
ilambiquated: You are essentially claiming, as Wolfowitz claimed, that the only thing wrong with Iraq was Saddam. But you are wrong.

no, I'm not claiming that, nor am I wrong. the biggest things wrong with the middle eas are illiteracy, ignorance, impotent rage, and misogyny.

 
KaponoFor3 [recently expired TotalFark] 2008-05-29 11:46:48 AM  
ilambiquated: So there are only two options:
1. Negotiate with them
2. Do nothing


You are missing MasterThief's option.

There are plenty of options outside of negotiate and do nothing.

 
Edsel 2008-05-29 11:50:41 AM  
captain_napalm: Edsel: And look, this one has the advantage of creating millions of starving civilians as well!

yes, because they're so well-fed at the moment.

just like iraq was a utopida before we arrived? right, you liberal liars?


They're not dying of famine currently, as they would under the plan that your neocon buddy up there is proposing. And don't call me a liar, asswipe. I never claimed Iraq was a "utopida". That doesn't mean it was a good idea to invade there either. I notice that we made it into something a lot worse than a "utopida".

 
Desterion 2008-05-29 11:56:46 AM  
Monica Lewinski is also entirely bush's fault.

 
HitInTheJunk 2008-05-29 12:26:51 PM  
PC LOAD LETTER: I predict some moron will blather on about how it's all Clinton's fault.

Does that count as a "Clinton'd in the Boobies"?

No? Ok, I still get to say "Clinton'd in the Boobies," right?

Sweet.

 
IXI Jim IXI [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 12:36:12 PM  
Desterion: Monica Lewinski is also entirely bush's fault.

I blame cigars.

 
Skleenar 2008-05-29 12:51:01 PM  
MasterThief: The guy who actually negotiated the deal for Clinton (Robert Galucci) says otherwise.

I said it was 'debated'. And you might note that in your link, there is a response to the criticisms of Harrison's work by Galucci.

An excerpt:

The crux of the Reiss-Gallucci argument is that the new 2002 intelligence justified the CIA assessment that North Korea is making uranium-based nuclear weapons. I am not willing to accept this assessment on faith, considering the ideological agenda driving administration policy and the blatant misuse of intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

In my article, I spelled out numerous specific constraints that would make it difficult for North Korea to enrich uranium to weapons grade, and numerous specific reasons why the evidence leaked by the administration in support of the 2002 assessment should not be taken at face value. None of this analysis is acknowledged or addressed by Reiss and Gallucci.


North Korean engineers helping Syria build a reactor

From the link you provided:

North Korea may be cooperating with Syria on some sort of nuclear facility in Syria, according to new intelligence the United States has gathered over the past six months, sources said. The evidence, said to come primarily from Israel, includes dramatic satellite imagery that led some U.S. officials to believe that the facility could be used to produce material for nuclear weapons.


You stated this as a fact, when the article is full of "may be's" and unnamed sources. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking what 'intelligence sources' say about WMD programs anymore, especially when the source has an obvious stake in the matter.

And then there's that little matter of North Korean engineers helping Syria build a reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons

Again, from your link:

U.S. officials said that Israel shared the video with the United States before the Sept. 6 bombing, after Bush administration officials expressed skepticism last spring that the facility, visible by satellite since 2001, was a nuclear reactor built with North Korea's assistance. Israel has a nuclear weapons arsenal that it has never declared.

But beginning today, intelligence officials will tell members of the House and Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign relations committees that the Syrian facility was not yet fully operational and that there was no uranium for the reactor and no indication of fuel capability, according to U.S. officials and intelligence sources.

David Albright, president of Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and a former U.N. weapons inspector, said the absence of such evidence warrants skepticism that the reactor was part of an active weapons program.

"The United States and Israel have not identified any Syrian plutonium separation facilities or nuclear weaponization facilities," he said. "The lack of any such facilities gives little confidence that the reactor is part of an active nuclear weapons program. The apparent lack of fuel, either imported or indigenously produced, also is curious and lowers confidence that Syria has a nuclear weapons program."


While more damning than the previous article, both of the Syria links do very little to prove that NK cheated on the talks we were discussing. This is talking about a later issue and does not provide any evidence at all of an active NK nuke weapons program during the period we discussed.

In fact, it may actually support the opposite, since the allegation is that these NK engineers were in Syria, not in North Korea--where they would presumably be needed for a weapons program.

 
MasterThief [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 01:38:33 PM  
Skleenar: I said it was 'debated'. And you might note that in your link, there is a response to the criticisms of Harrison's work by Galucci.

Harrison doesn't put up much of a "debate." He just says, "no, it was all Bush's hype," despite the fact that Galucci and Reiss worked for the Clinton administration and wanted the deal to work. As for Harrison's "analysis," it's addressed, and convincingly rebutted by paragraphs 3-8 of Reiss and Galucci's response.

One of Harrison's arguments from the original article was that North Korea was only enriching uranium to prepare 'slightly' enriched uranium (SEU) needed for the light water reactors (LWR) promised under the 1994 Agreed Framework. How convenient! "You provided us the reactor, but don't worry, we cooked our own uranium, so you can just leave now, K?" His overall case is that the U.S. never proved North Korea had a uranium program, but if they did it was for legitimate purposes. How he manages this level of cognitive dissonance without his head exploding is beyond me.

North Korea, more likely than not, had an HEU-based nuclear weapons program that they hid from the negotiators. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on Mr. Harrison.

Skleenar: I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking what 'intelligence sources' say about WMD programs anymore, especially when the source has an obvious stake in the matter.

Well, welcome to the world of intelligence, where "smoking guns" exist only after they have been fired. (Kinda like reality.) And however dubious the intelligence was, it was apparently enough for Israel to launch a long-range airstrike of a kind not seen since the bombing of Saddam's Osirak reactor in 1981.

While more damning than the previous article, both of the Syria links do very little to prove that NK cheated on the talks we were discussing. This is talking about a later issue and does not provide any evidence at all of an active NK nuke weapons program during the period we discussed.

In fact, it may actually support the opposite, since the allegation is that these NK engineers were in Syria, not in North Korea--where they would presumably be needed for a weapons program.


It goes to motive, credibility, and trustworthiness. Compare what North Korea is doing with what Libya did: admit it had a program, turn over all information, and be as transparent as possible.

The informal slogan adopted by the Reagan and Gorbachev negotiators during the 1980's (START, INF, CFE) was simple: "trust, but verify." Negotiations only work when you have a counterpart that acts in good faith; one who is trustworthy and who is willing to prove to you (not some amorphous "neutral" third party) that they are acting in good faith by allowing you to directly verify compliance. Without that basic level of trust, diplomacy is not just useless - it is dangerous.

 
Jurodan 2008-05-29 02:03:26 PM  
Reading this article made me want to take a claw hammer and bash my skull in.

 
Skleenar 2008-05-29 02:36:32 PM  
MasterThief: Harrison doesn't put up much of a "debate." He just says, "no, it was all Bush's hype," despite the fact that Galucci and Reiss worked for the Clinton administration and wanted the deal to work. As for Harrison's "analysis," it's addressed, and convincingly rebutted by paragraphs 3-8 of Reiss and Galucci's response.

Your response, just like Galucci's, ignores the specific issues identified by Harrison in his rebuttal.

One of Harrison's arguments from the original article was that North Korea was only enriching uranium to prepare 'slightly' enriched uranium (SEU) needed for the light water reactors (LWR) promised under the 1994 Agreed Framework. How convenient! "You provided us the reactor, but don't worry, we cooked our own uranium, so you can just leave now, K?" His overall case is that the U.S. never proved North Korea had a uranium program, but if they did it was for legitimate purposes. How he manages this level of cognitive dissonance without his head exploding is beyond me

That really isn't an argument based on facts.
Was making fuel for a light water reactor against the Clinton Agreement?

It appears, from Galucci's response, that it wasn't:

KEDO was committed to assisting North Korea in securing a foreign supply of reactor fuel, making it unnecessary for North Korea to undertake the expensive process of domestic LEU production.


I mean, since when was NK worried about the economic optimization of their regime? It may be that they had plenty of incentive to keep nuclear expertise in the country (whether it be for peaceful needs or the potential of military needs in the future) by using their people to create fuel domestically.

 
Korovyov [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 02:48:13 PM  

Skleenar --
Uranium enrichment did go against the Agreed Framework.


III.2. The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, whose 3rd point indicated "The South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities".


The Agreed Framework also (IV.1) reaffirmed NPT and the associated Safeguards Agreement, which requires disclosure by the DPRK of nuclear activities.


 
Korovyov [TotalFark] 2008-05-29 05:38:51 PM  
...in addition, it is known that that the Khan network was providing clandestine assistance to the DPRK program -- Khan himself visiting some 13 times starting in 1994. Musharraf himself acknowledged publicly that transfers included centrifuges (actual and designs) for handling UF6. That these talks and transfers started immediately after the signing Agreed Framework -- and well before Pres. Bush became a President, let alone gave his "Axis of Evil" speech -- suggests that one would have to be ignorant to blame Pres. Bush for the breakdown of the Agreed Framework.

 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments


[Continue Farking]