funkedup: Kim and his country would be completely destroyed if they used nukes against the US or our allies. I can't see him trying it. So you believe he is rational and will not commit a spectacular suicide when he has to die anyway?
Remember, we are in a liberation and threat reduction business now and the people most in need of liberation and posing most threat is NK right now. He is well aware of that. If we liberate NK, what are the chances of him not ending up dead? Would he even want to live in some french hotel if guaranteed so - not that we would? I bet he would go out with a bang.
Anyway, we are not arguing here whether US should disarm on North Korean's word - just whether we should send a delegation there for
direct talks to listen to their requests.
What's the harm in that? The worst that happens they detain and kill Colin Powel and the rest of the delegation. A loss, no doubt, but not a disaster and not likely to hapen.
More likely Powell will just have to eat some kimchee. He can certainly endure that and can get a medal for his trouble
.
Recognizing them as a legitimate government? Well, two things: First of all, that wouldn't change the fact that they're starving and living without electricity. Theoretically we are still in the state of war with them, so US president can legally send a strike there without impending threat or asking anyone. Legitimacy may prevent that - or so they hope.
Second, have you heard them say they'd give up their nukes if this happened? Sure - recognising their legitimacy and creating non-agression treaty was the essense of 1994 agreement between them and Clinton brokered by Carter - it was not just about free oil for them. Recognition was promised to them in exchenge for disarming and keeping inspectors there to validate they abide by the rules.
Since they realised US had no intention of going through with that, they reneged on the agreement too.
You could argue that they should have disarmed first before we legitimised them but compare the risks. If we decided we made a mistake by legitimising them, we could reverse that in a short time or disregard that anyway. Nothing material would change for us - only words on paper.
But if they decided that they made a mistake and wasted eight years they could have been building the weapons - tough.
In that case legitimising them would be expected to precede their actual disarming.
If someone wants you to throw away your gun in exchange for nothing more than a promise of non-agression from a well-armed fellow and that fellow would hesitate to give you that promise untill you actually throw away your gun, would you?
The NK should have been invaded when it was safe
r to do so - in the 90s. I'd have been all for that. Unlike iraqis, I have no doubt north koreans would have been better off without that regime - even the dead ones.
But it is plain silly on our part to expect them to trust us or fall for our ruses and pretend "offended virtue".
miko
