Read 1478 times

  • dkim47
  • Explorer

    • 5

    • December 07, 2011, 10:36:00 pm
Obama made a bad deal with NK
« on: March 04, 2012, 07:19:17 am »

“Even the U.S. statement says nuclear suspension is confined to Yongbyon. This is like looking at North Korea through a soda straw, while the DPRK does what it pleases elsewhere.”

Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2012, 10:53:23 am »
It defies the very definition of a deal. Obama is one weak ass "president."

  • woman-king
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1159

    • October 18, 2010, 03:56:29 pm
    • Gyeonggi
Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2012, 06:12:27 pm »
Thanks for the link, always nice to get a heads-up on a good article about NK.  Limiting the nuclear suspension to only one area makes absolutely no sense.  The thing is, NK can't completely relinquish its "potential nuclear threat" status--it's their best weapon in manipulating other governments into giving them foreign aid, and keeping their regime free from potential regime-change attempts.  It will take some serious duress to actually halt their nuke programs, and SK and the West simply don't want to invest in doing that right now.  This is a way to keep NK somewhat contained and controlled without having to do any serious or expensive intervention.  Which is, I'd imagine, what most Americans and South Koreans would like to avoid.  Obama and the SK government are walking the fine line trying to keep a door of communication open with NK without having to actually confront them.  From what I understand, this is basically how we've been dealing with NK all along.  Nothing really seems to be changing--as the article said, it's deja vu.

  • leejs
  • Veteran

    • 115

    • March 29, 2011, 07:28:55 pm
    • South Korea
Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2012, 07:25:56 pm »
I'm no fan of the president, but it sounds like a decent deal to me. A little bit of food and in return we get a bit of progress and re-opening of the lines of communication. You can't trust the North Korean government but even so, a little talking is better than no talking. Yes, the agreement to end uranium enrichment is limited to one facility, but this is a country that can barely feed it's people, how many advanced nuclear facilities do they have up and running, capable of enriching uranium.

There's also the fact that the North Korea government has really built it's reputation and power on the military and more recently nuclear weapons. Given that, does anyone really expect them to flat out agree never to strive for nuclear weapons. This agreement at least takes away their main facility (assuming they follow through) while allowing the government to save face and not have to look weak in the eyes of their people.

Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2012, 11:49:59 pm »
North Korea will never give up the nuclear card. They know how powerful it is. They can blackmail and threaten for eons with it.  I fear that the only way to stop their program will be when they launch one of their nukes at Japan or Guam or S.Korea. Then it will be go time.

  • Frozencat99
  • The Legend

    • 2096

    • October 09, 2011, 04:31:36 pm
Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2012, 12:38:14 pm »
I'm happier with this deal and more open lines of communication that I would be with whatever would have happened under McCain.

Also, the nuclear card isn't nearly as powerful as it used to be considering the detection systems we have in place as well as the nuclear disarmament capabilities we have developed.  North Korea is going to realize this, if they haven't already.
Beware the Homosexual Industrial Complex --

You can leave your heterophobia behind.

  • Davox
  • Super Waygook

    • 497

    • February 05, 2011, 03:01:13 pm
    • Ilsan
Re: Obama made a bad deal with NK
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2012, 02:03:29 pm »
You're seeing this from the "Obama sucks" perspective, which is a totally valid perspective to have.  NK likely sees this from a "OMG, you're allowing US troops to invade our country for something simple like food" perspective. Because that's valid too.

That's always been the crux of these deals, of which there have been quite a few over the years.  They tend to break down like this: 
US+NK: Ok, food for stopping the project, deal.
NK: Ok, stopped. Where's the food?
US: No food until you prove you've stopped.
NK: How can we possibly prove anything to you when we both hate and distrust each other?
US: We're going to send some "observers" (read: armed troops) to your country to 'inspect'.  You have to allow them to go anywhere in the country, including any top secret military bases.  We're going to remember anything they discover and will of course use that information should there be a war. And if you try to stop our observers from doing anything they might want to do, whether it's part of the agreement or not, it'll potentially be an act of war.
NK: That sounds like an invasion to me, and we'd prefer not to be invaded and conquered thanks.
US: No inspections, no food.
US+NK: Ok, deals off, no food, no stopping.

The only difference between previous deals and this one is that the US has pre-listed the places they're going to send the "observers" and NK has pre-agreed to those places so this deal has a greater than 0% chance of actually occurring, unlike every other deal (except Kaesong of course, which also succeeded because it was geographically limited).

Is it worth risking the chance that NK could hide weapons development just to have one single diplomatic success in NK where every single other one was doomed to failure before the ink was dry?  Obama thinks so, but I can see how people who believe we should just "conquer the country and damn the consequences" would disagree.