[BRussell]

I'm trying to understand what's going on with N Korea. Is this a good thing? How is it different from earlier agreements?

Link.

[cmeisenzahl]

I only saw the headlines myself. It could be good. It also could be bad if we give them tons of money to stop and they take the money and continue anyway, like we did 10-12 years ago.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I only saw the headlines myself. It could be good. It also could be bad if we give them tons of money to stop and they take the money and continue anyway, like we did 10-12 years ago.

It does sound like the same agreement from the past - light water reactors for elimination of their nuke program. I think the added carrot of a pledge not to attack is new. A DJ on the radio had a great comment about on that point - its a desolate land which makes nothing of worth, why would we invade?

I think part of the breakdown of the last agreement was that what was promised to them was not forth coming in a timely fashion agreed upon - Congress held up payments and equipment. Not that I would trust the North Koreans but its a little more complicated than they renegged on the deal.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

It does sound like the same agreement from the past - light water reactors for elimination of their nuke program. I think the added carrot of a pledge not to attack is new. A DJ on the radio had a great comment about on that point - its a desolate land which makes nothing of worth, why would we invade?

I think part of the breakdown of the last agreement was that what was promised to them was not forth coming in a timely fashion agreed upon - Congress held up payments and equipment. Not that I would trust the North Koreans but its a little more complicated than they renegged on the deal.

My point to besson3c on 9/13/05. Hmm...Maybe the DJ posts here?

Originally Posted by besson3c

Okay,

You make good points, and I'm quite honestly ambivalent about whether we should have invaded (my grievances have more to do with the process, but no need to get into this again). I can accept what you are saying.

However, how would you feel about invading North Korea, or any other country? Where does it end? When is it a last resort? This is where I'm most conflicted, but again, no need to get into this again either.

And you wonder why I sound like a broken record?

North Korea has HOW much oil?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I only saw the headlines myself. It could be good. It also could be bad if we give them tons of money to stop and they take the money and continue anyway, like we did 10-12 years ago.

Ok. Now. Flash FORWARD into the future about 10 years or so...

Kim Sung Il continually breaks the agreements and skims and scams the money he's getting for performance, yet he doesn't perform as promised. And the whole time we have no REAL way to know for sure whether he has WMD's or not?

I hope we are all here then so you all of you who opposed the invasion of Iraq will remember (HA! THAT'S a laugh! Everyone knows how short your attention spans and memories are! ) that President Bush faced the same situation in 2003 that the 2013 president will face with North Korea.

[BRussell]

But apparently part of this agreement is that we won't invade them.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But apparently part of this agreement is that we won't invade them.

Yes, BRussell. That's a good thing for us.

We would ONLY invade if they posed a threat. If they pose no threat then we will be happy to leave them alone.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We would ONLY invade if they posed a threat. If they pose no threat then we will be happy to leave them alone.

*spits coffee all over keyboard*

[edit] OK, I'll add something a bit more constructive.

From what I've been reading (example here), this agreement has been a possibility since Bush took office, but was rejected as being too nice to NK, especially the part about taking military action against them off the table. It's not clear what has changed, except that Condi has more influence over Bush than Colin had.

That piece also suggests that this is basically the agreement that Iran has wanted too.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But apparently part of this agreement is that we won't invade them.

Does this surprise or disappoint you?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

*spits coffee all over keyboard*

Your response truly touches me and amazes me.

Your REALLY believe the anti-Bush rhetoric, don't you?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your response truly touches me and amazes me.

Your REALLY believe the anti-Bush rhetoric, don't you?

I submit to you, my friend, that it's not anti-Bush rhetoric to be surprised by a Bush supporter and an Iraq war supporter who claims that we would never invade a country that is no threat to us.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I submit to you, my friend, that it's not anti-Bush rhetoric to be surprised by a Bush supporter and an Iraq war supporter who claims that we would never invade a country that is no threat to us.

Aw, come on.

We had to secure the oil and NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE IF SADDAM WAS A THREAT OR NOT. WE HAD TO ATTACK TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY.

Ted Turner, along with the rest of the country, just wasn't sure.

Journalists and Generals
Issue of 2003-03-31
Posted 2003-03-24
On March 18th, Ted Turner, the founder of Cable News Network and Turner Network Television, spoke to the New Yorker writer Ken Auletta at a forum sponsored by the Newhouse School at Syracuse University. Here is a partial transcript of their conversation.

Do you believe Saddam Hussein when he says he has no weapons of mass destruction?

I don't really know. I don't think he has as many as France or Pakistan or India or Israel or Britain, or certainly not us or Russia. We've got the most. I mean, if we want disarmament, why don't we offer to disarm? That's what we signed in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, thirty-five years ago—just to put everything in real perspective. Who are we to say that we can have thousands of nuclear weapons and other people can't? India can't, Pakistan can't. Why? Don't we believe that all men are created equal? I mean, if we got 'em, I think they have a right to have 'em.

By the way...

Would you say a direct threat or possibly imminent WMD attack on Israel would satisfy your criterion for what constitutes a threat on us?

[James L]

Originally Posted by mojo2

... NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE IF SADDAM WAS A THREAT OR NOT. WE HAD TO ATTACK TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY.

Does the hook hurt your mouth when you are fished in like that?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by James L

Does the hook hurt your mouth when you are fished in like that?

Haha. With your martial arts experience you know that when you can't avoid an attack you strike first. You can't help being fizzy brained but don't act dishonestly, too!

By the way, let's NOT derail this thread about NORTH KOREA.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

By the way, let's NOT derail this thread about NORTH KOREA.

Capital idea.

Now, how is this agreement any different (with the noted exception of the we will not invade you pledge) than the Agreed Framework worked out by the Clinton Administration? The general speaking points seem to be the same.

Your point on Rice's influence might be true. Perhaps she was also able to point to a Republican controlled executive and legislature as assurance that we would keep our portion of the bargain this time - IIRC Congress slowed or held up a lot of the monies and material last time - I don't know if that was partisanship or not at the time but it was an excuse the Koreans used to break the agreement.

I don't have time but if someone else does Goggle around and post some links for what the South Korean, Japanese, Russian editorials are saying about this. It'd be interesting to get that point of view.

[mojo2]

This just in...

N.Korea: No reactor, no nuclear deal
Sep. 20, 2005 at 6:56AM
North Korea said Tuesday the United States must give it a light water reactor before it will abandon its nuclear programs, jeopardizing a deal signed Monday.
A Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement, "The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light water reactors). This is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted rock," Xinhua news agency reported.
The statement came one day after six-party talks concluded in Beijing with an agreement that North Korea would abandon all its nuclear programs in return for oil and energy aid.
Monday's agreement said the issue of nuclear energy for North Korea would be discussed "at an appropriate time." U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill had made it clear that a North Korean demand for a reactor before it began dismantling its nuclear programs was a "non-starter."
U.S. and Japanese officials, saying the provision of a light water reactor was not what had been agreed Monday, called the demand unacceptable.
Some analysts blamed the United States for not having the details spelled out clearly in the signed agreement. The document did not mention when specific actions would take place.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050920-061138-3883r.htm

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

*spits coffee all over keyboard*

[edit] OK, I'll add something a bit more constructive.

From what I've been reading (example here), this agreement has been a possibility since Bush took office, but was rejected as being too nice to NK, especially the part about taking military action against them off the table. It's not clear what has changed, except that Condi has more influence over Bush than Colin had.

That piece also suggests that this is basically the agreement that Iran has wanted too.

Looks like your source, quoted below, called it right. In a strange new alliance, we have Iran and North Korea with identical bargaining points. I'll let someone else look at which powerful friends would influence the US taking actions against either player.

The hope now is that the administration's low-cost concessions to North Korea will be applied to Iran to stanch its nuclear program. Now, however, the administration and the EU 3 will have to deal with a new Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is tilting Iran's policy to the east, and seems less willing to compromise to gain favor with Europe or the United States.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

This just in...

N.Korea: No reactor, no nuclear deal
Sep. 20, 2005 at 6:56AM
North Korea said Tuesday the United States must give it a light water reactor before it will abandon its nuclear programs, jeopardizing a deal signed Monday.
A Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement, "The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light water reactors). This is our just and consistent stand as solid as a deeply rooted rock," Xinhua news agency reported.
The statement came one day after six-party talks concluded in Beijing with an agreement that North Korea would abandon all its nuclear programs in return for oil and energy aid.
Monday's agreement said the issue of nuclear energy for North Korea would be discussed "at an appropriate time." U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill had made it clear that a North Korean demand for a reactor before it began dismantling its nuclear programs was a "non-starter."
U.S. and Japanese officials, saying the provision of a light water reactor was not what had been agreed Monday, called the demand unacceptable.
Some analysts blamed the United States for not having the details spelled out clearly in the signed agreement. The document did not mention when specific actions would take place.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050920-061138-3883r.htm

Looks like we can close this thread.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Looks like we can close this thread.

LOL

Even if there were a completed deal or if North Korea suddenly ceased to exist, the subject of North Korea would remain an issue of discussion.

As far as the subject of the agreement, there WILL be talk and discussions after this.

But then, you were just keeding, right? Hahaha, RlRedinPA you are such a keeeder!

[mojo2]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/...rea_9-19.html#

From PBS The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, yesterday, when the deal was announced.

A good agreement -- or more of the same?

RAY SUAREZ: For more on today's development we get two views. Jack Pritchard was special envoy for negotiations with North Korea during President Bush's first term. He also handled North Korean issues on the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. And Chuck Jones was director for Asian affairs on the National Security Council in 2004. He participated in two previous rounds of the six-nation talks.

Well, Ambassador Pritchard, these talks were described as fruitless for more than two years and always seemed on the verge of falling apart. What happened, and did they get a good agreement out of it?

JACK PRITCHARD: Well, to answer the last question first, yes, it is a good agreement; it's an agreement that you can build on. But to tell you that this is the agreement is wrong. This is just simply the principles that will guide the future negotiations that will start in November.

But what's changed is the administration has changed tactics. In the first couple of years, they had, they wanted no contact with the North Koreans bilaterally or otherwise.

When Secretary Rice became secretary of state, she took it upon herself to try to succeed, and she changed the dynamics; she appointed Chris Hill, the negotiator. He has taken great strides in putting this into a professional dynamic in which there needs to be, and has been, under his tutelage here, sustained in direct dialogue with the North Koreans, for the first thirteen days and the fourth round, and now they have come back for another seven days to conclude these rounds.

You have had 20 days of negotiations in a sustained and bilateral manner under the guidance of the six half party talks. That's the difference and it has succeeded.

RAY SUAREZ: Chuck Jones, do you agree that this agreement is the fruits of a change in direction by the Bush administration and did they get something worthwhile out of it?

CHUCK JONES: To answer the second question first they did get something very worthwhile out of it. I completely agree with Jack, though. It is the start of the process -- not the end by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm not so sure it was a change in direction so much as a validation of the six-party process that the administration stuck to from the very beginning. We saw it played out in this case.

I think to a large extent the North Koreans signed up for these principles because in that six-party form, it wasn't the bilateral exchanges so much as the North Koreans didn't want to be the only one not to sign up for these principles; they were fearful of being isolated.

RAY SUAREZ: But Chuck Jones -- I'm sorry -- go ahead and finish.

CHUCK JONES: So I think it is a validation to some extent of the administration's approach from the very beginning of the process.

RAY SUAREZ: Haven't we been here before, though? Haven't there been agreements with the North Koreans that looked like they had all the aspects that both sides wanted that ended up coming to nothing?

CHUCK JONES: Absolutely true. We have had agreements with the North Koreans going back for decades that we thought were going to close this deal. When they first entered the nonproliferation treaty, when they signed the agreement framework, we thought we had the final answer in dealing with this issue of North Koreans only to find out that we didn't.

So, as Jack has already alluded to, the devil is going to be in the details. Are we able to make this the agreement that finally settles this issue and does away completely with North Korea's nuclear capability?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Ambassador Pritchard, is there any way of framing this thing in a way that some of the experiences of the past with North Korean breaches can't be repeated?

JACK PRITCHARD: Well, one of the most important points I think we were going to avoid is -- one of the pitfalls that the agreed framework had and that was postponing, getting rid of the spent fuel, one of the leverages the North Koreans held over us for a number of years. That can't be repeated. So when the verification takes place, it has to be for a complete removal of all their nuclear activities. There can't be a postponement or a later atonement for something they haven't yet done.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, the current deal specifies that everything comes out: Civilian and military. North Korea starts to apply the nonproliferation treaty again, and then we can start talking about a civilian program. Is that the way to go?

JACK PRITCHARD: Well, that's the principle involved. What you're going to get is in November, when the actual negotiations take place -- and I think what the United States is going to be looking for early on is a declaration by the North Koreans as to what their program consists of -- what facilities, which we know pretty well, how much plutonium that they've extracted, how many devices, nuclear weapons do they have, and, more importantly, that is not specified but is embedded in the agreement today is a linkage to any uranium enrichment.

What do they have that related to what AQ Khan network through Pakistan gave to North Korea in terms of centrifuges, what other elements they have done for themselves -- that all has to be accounted for; it can't be put off indefinitely.

RAY SUAREZ: And Chuck Jones, do you think this is at least the beginning of a process that ends up with a non-nuclear North Korea?

CHUCK JONES: I think it offers that possibility. We are going to have to test the proposition as to whether or not North Korea is truly serious about it at this point. They have made a step in the right direction. There's some reason for some optimism. But history tells us that in dealing with the North Koreans skepticism is often the approach you want to take.

Let me say I agree completely with Jack on the point about this is going to have to address their entire program. And critically it's going to have to address the uranium enrichment program. That's something to some degree that's finessed in the agreement -- it had to be -- but at some point it is going to have to be addressed. If it's not addressed, then I think we will have a problem.

RAY SUAREZ: Is it possible to really know once and for all whether they are abiding by an agreement to strip themselves of all their enrichment programs?

CHUCK JONES: There's never a 100 percent certainty in these cases, particularly in a society like North Korea where it's so opaque to the outside viewer. But I think it is fair to say that we have a fairly good concept of what we think the North Koreans have. It differs from what they actually show us by a great deal, and there will be a lot of questions asked. If they come up and say we have the uranium enrichment program, for example, I think that will be unsatisfactory. If they don't produce any nuclear weapons, again, unsatisfactory.

So there may be some discrepancies but as long as that difference between what they say they have and what we think they have isn't too great, there'll be a certain level of certainty. But there's never going to be 100 percent certainty, no.

There is video and audio and text of this interview, which continues...

[mojo2]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-20-voa79.cfm

US, Russia Dismiss North Korea's Nuclear Reactor Demand
By Peter Heinlein

United Nations
20 September 2005

Condoleezza Rice at UN headquarters in New York Monday
The United States and Russia are not taking seriously North Korea's demand that it be given a light water reactor before dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Tuesday brushed aside a reporter's question about North Korea's demand for civilian nuclear reactors. Speaking at a United Nations news conference, Ms. Rice called the demand inappropriate, in the context of the six-party agreement signed this week in Beijing.

"I think we'll just stick with the text of Beijing agreement to which the North Koreans signed on, and the text of the agreement says we'll discuss a light water reactor at an appropriate time. There were several statements afterwards that make clear what that sequence is. This issue doesn't really arise," said Ms. Rice.

Secretary Rice noted that North Korea has dropped out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and rejected U.N. atomic energy agency safeguards. She suggested Pyongyang would have to agree to international restraints before its demand for a light water reactor would be seriously considered.

"So I think we will not get hung up on this statement, we will stick to the text of the Beijing statement, and I believe we can make progress if everybody sticks to what was actually agreed to," she added.