Glad we did not get Boulton, Dammit!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called the agreement -- in which North Korea would freeze its main nuclear facility in exchange for an initial supply of fuel oil -- "a bad deal" that violated principles that were closely held in the beginning of the Bush administration.
 
All this deal does is reward N Korea for defying the UN. They will take the fuel then they will renig on the deal in a couple of years and play the same game all over again.
 
I find it interesting that the multi-lateral talks worked, a deal was signed and yet we hear nothing from all those who rejected the idea of multi-lateral talks rather than bilateral talks.... who predicted that it couldn't and shouldn't be done that way.

Hmmm... Also the silence in most of the press is deafening on this particular one. Bush the diplomat... It sounds weird, but it happened.
 
Damocles said:
I find it interesting that the multi-lateral talks worked, a deal was signed and yet we hear nothing from all those who rejected the idea of multi-lateral talks rather than bilateral talks.... who predicted that it couldn't and shouldn't be done that way.

Hmmm... Also the silence in most of the press is deafening on this particular one. Bush the diplomat... It sounds weird, but it happened.
Click to expand...

Agreed... but the conservatives are pissed.
 
I'm keeping my powder dry, until the north koreans actually comply. Talk is cheap.

I remember about 18 months ago there was a "breakthrough" and bush fans were crowing about it.

Diplomacy can work. Bush is working to get the same deal we could have had four years ago. I hope it works out.
 
It is pretty much the same deal that they reneged on earlier. They do this to collect the dollars so they can continue to feed their nation. Otherwise they simply would fail spectacularly.
 
Ooops...


Bush Uses Clinton's Approach to Secure Korean Accord

Bloomberg News

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The accord struck by the U.S. and its partners to limit and eventually dismantle North Korea's nuclear program resembles one signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, a deal President George W. Bush denounced.

Bush, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, criticized the Clinton-negotiated Agreed Framework, saying Kim Jong Il's government all along ``was deceiving the world'' and developing nuclear weapons. Bush abandoned the deal in 2002 after North Korea admitted it had violated the accord, which offered energy aid for an end to the nuclear effort.

Since then, the U.S. has remained suspicious of any arrangement that would provide oil or other support to North Korea before Kim's dictatorship verifiably shut down the program. ``The North Koreans cheated'' on the 1994 agreement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in October after North Korea tested a nuclear device.

Now, some argue, Bush has been forced to backtrack on some of his principles and adopt the Clinton approach because of the growing threat North Korea poses to U.S. national security interests after the October test-blast. .......



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ab9JMOlf93l0&refer=worldwide
 
Damocles said:
It is pretty much the same deal that they reneged on earlier. They do this to collect the dollars so they can continue to feed their nation. Otherwise they simply would fail spectacularly.
Click to expand...
Did they renege? You sure about that? Seems to me that the first party to fail in their obligations under a treaty or agreement is the one to have reneged.

EDIT

For reference, http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp. Please note item one.
 
Last edited:
OrnotBitwise said:
Did they renege? You sure about that? Seems to me that the first party to fail in their obligations under a treaty or agreement is the one to have reneged.

EDIT

For reference, http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp. Please note item one.
Click to expand...
North Korea expelled the UN inspectors when the US stated that if they struck at us with the nukes they were working on we'd retaliate...

Link here

Yes, they blamed it on the US, but the threat was only made because it was found they were violating the terms of the agreement.

So, in other words...

Yes, I am sure they reneged.
 
Damocles said:
North Korea expelled the UN inspectors when the US stated that if they struck at us with the nukes they were working on we'd retaliate...

Link here

Yes, they blamed it on the US, but the threat was only made because it was found they were violating the terms of the agreement.

So, in other words...

Yes, I am sure they reneged.
Click to expand...
Uhm, where's the progress on that light water reactor we agreed to supply them with?
 
Seriously, they kicked them out before any of that could be done, at least by this admin. You could just as easily ask it of the previous admin...

However, by moving to kick out the inspectors becuase of an implied if this happens then this will ended any progress on any of it, and the reason that the US said it was because NK was specifically violating the terms, they had not shut down the program as they said they would...

So, "Where is the progress?" well, it was in the advance of Nuclear Capability as they promised not to do...

Were they "cheating"? Yes, should we have given them such things even while they violated terms? I don't believe we should have. You may disagree.

However, I do remember some on the left telling us that the US could never broker a deal unless they used Bilateral talks. It does appear as if they can and this time there is regional support because they too were there for the agreement.
 
Damocles said:
Seriously, they kicked them out before any of that could be done, at least by this admin. You could just as easily ask it of the previous admin...

However, by moving to kick out the inspectors becuase of an implied if this happens then this will ended any progress on any of it, and the reason that the US said it was because NK was specifically violating the terms, they had not shut down the program as they said they would...

So, "Where is the progress?" well, it was in the advance of Nuclear Capability as they promised not to do...

Were they "cheating"? Yes, should we have given them such things even while they violated terms? I don't believe we should have. You may disagree.

However, I do remember some on the left telling us that the US could never broker a deal unless they used Bilateral talks. It does appear as if they can and this time there is regional support because they too were there for the agreement.
Click to expand...
Damo, the deal was concluded in 1994! We were to have made contracts for supplying the fuel for those reactors within a year, if memory serves. We reneged on that back when Clinton was president.

Back when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress refused to honor the deal Clinton had brokered.

If I were a North Korean, I'd honestly feel totally justified in backing out of the deal. The U.S. failed to live up to its end as early as 1995. NK was actually exercising a great deal of restraint by waiting as long as they did to openly expell the inspectors.
 
Just to be sure there's no misunderstanding, I'm not saying that Kim Jong Il is a nice guy or that North Korea should become a nuclear power. I am saying, however, that to claim NK reneged on the Agreed Upon Framework is a total distortion.
 
And I am saying, that less than one year into Bush's Presidency on a deal that was nearing 7 years into it, blaming it on Bush is a bit ridiculous.

Yeah, just as kicking the inspectors out and saying it was the US fault for saying the if then statement was a stretch...

Everybody can play tit for tat. It just is silly in this context. They wanted to make nukes, they took a minute reason blew it out of proportion and kicked out the inspectors and began to make nukes. Taking it out of that context and attempting to blame a President that had only been president one year of a deal that was nearing it's eighth anniversary is definitely a "distortion".
 
"Is war preferable to you super ?"

No.

If South Korea wants to foot the bill, then that is their choice. But WE should not be paying for it.... AGAIN.
 
Cypress said:
Ooops...


Bush Uses Clinton's Approach to Secure Korean Accord

Bloomberg News

Feb. 14 (Bloomberg) -- The accord struck by the U.S. and its partners to limit and eventually dismantle North Korea's nuclear program resembles one signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, a deal President George W. Bush denounced.

Bush, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, criticized the Clinton-negotiated Agreed Framework, saying Kim Jong Il's government all along ``was deceiving the world'' and developing nuclear weapons. Bush abandoned the deal in 2002 after North Korea admitted it had violated the accord, which offered energy aid for an end to the nuclear effort.

Since then, the U.S. has remained suspicious of any arrangement that would provide oil or other support to North Korea before Kim's dictatorship verifiably shut down the program. ``The North Koreans cheated'' on the 1994 agreement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in October after North Korea tested a nuclear device.

Now, some argue, Bush has been forced to backtrack on some of his principles and adopt the Clinton approach because of the growing threat North Korea poses to U.S. national security interests after the October test-blast. .......



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ab9JMOlf93l0&refer=worldwide
Click to expand...



As well he should! Love him or not... some of Clintons most brilliant moments came about on how he handled Foreign Leaders. They love the guy ...
Should the unthinkable happen, meaning Hillary captures the White House.. she would do well by naming Bill "Secretary of the State."
 
Damocles said:
And I am saying, that less than one year into Bush's Presidency on a deal that was nearing 7 years into it, blaming it on Bush is a bit ridiculous.

Yeah, just as kicking the inspectors out and saying it was the US fault for saying the if then statement was a stretch...

Everybody can play tit for tat. It just is silly in this context. They wanted to make nukes, they took a minute reason blew it out of proportion and kicked out the inspectors and began to make nukes. Taking it out of that context and attempting to blame a President that had only been president one year of a deal that was nearing it's eighth anniversary is definitely a "distortion".
Click to expand...
I never said it was Bush's fault that we reneged. I'm simply stating a fact: it was our side that reneged on the agreement, not theirs.
 
When NK chose to kick out the inspectors they ended that first portion. The Inspectors were there to ensure that they had ended their weapons programs, they could not finish their job. All based on a single if/then statement that had they ended their program would have been moot.

Blaming the US for not holding up a bargain that the first condition had not yet been met is baseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top