Clinton says U.S. mulls putting North Korea back on terror list

Clinton says U.S. mulls putting North Korea back on terror list | Politics | Reuters


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is looking into putting North Korea back on a list of state sponsors of terrorism in response to its nuclear test last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview on Sunday.



I bet North Korea is seriously considering giving up their nukes now...riiigggghhht


Is this part of Obama's toughest talk to date on North Korea where he stated North Korea needs to return to the negotiation table or face the "consequences?"


To pre-empt the future posts of 'What should he do, invade?' That is not what I'm advocating. Nor am I being critical of Obama's policies towards North Korea or attempting to be partisan in any way concerning this issue. Please leave the discussion of "Well this wouldn't of happened if Clinton or Bush had done this.." for another time. Feel free to mention prior agreements if they are contributive to the thread and the subject.

I'm more curious as to when the administration is going to be realistic with the American people and world and say "We have no deterrent to North Korea obtaining more nuclear weapons and all we can do is attempt to lure them away from that path with provocative deals and a place on the 'world stage'"

followed by..."All we can do from here on out is further contain North Korea and do our best to prevent nuclear proliferation."

An invasion is just out of the question, and would take a serious military incident for one to occur. Even then, depending on the severity of the incident of course, I would still bet against seeing U.S troops engaged in ground combat on the Korean Peninsula.

Sanctions aren't going to have any substantial effects except to further alienate the regime and punish the population. This has been proven, but yet is still being relied upon like it's having positive effects.

Subversive activities aren't very viable given the highly secular nature of the regime and the iron clad manner that dissidents are dealt with in NK.

China's control of NK may be over estimated, and therefore not as much of a leverage tool as hoped. An analogous representation could be the U.S' sway over Israel. We may have considerable influence over them, but in the end they will do what is best for their country and its security.



What does the future hold for North Korea?


There was some good discussion on the potential solutions to this problem a week or two ago. The discussion was unfortunately short lived as it turned into partisan bickering (big shocker.)

I am interested in hearing some opinions as to how you see this situation evolving in say 6 months, 1 year, 2 years etc.

The most likely situation I see occurring in the near future is more of the same predictable brinksmanship followed by more of the same rhetoric.

I don't see any notable concessions being made by either side in the near future, and the game of chasing the carrot on the string will continue for both sides.

Polynikes said:

I bet North Korea is seriously considering giving up their nukes now...riiigggghhht


Is this part of Obama's toughest talk to date on North Korea where he stated North Korea needs to return to the negotiation table or face the "consequences?"

Click to expand...

They aren't going to give up their nukes over this, but putting them back on the terror list would be one of the few effective punishments the United States has at its disposal. If North Korea didn't care about it, they wouldn't have lobbied to be removed from the list a few years ago.

Polynikes said:

I'm more curious as to when the administration is going to be realistic with the American people and world and say "We have no deterrent to North Korea obtaining more nuclear weapons and all we can do is attempt to lure them away from that path with provocative deals and a place on the 'world stage'"

followed by..."All we can do from here on out is further contain North Korea and do our best to prevent nuclear proliferation."

Click to expand...

Why would he say that to the American people? All it would do is demoralize and alarm people...in exchange for absolutely nothing.

Polynikes said:

I am interested in hearing some opinions as to how you see this situation evolving in say 6 months, 1 year, 2 years etc.

The most likely situation I see occurring in the near future is more of the same predictable brinksmanship followed by more of the same rhetoric.

I don't see any notable concessions being made by either side in the near future, and the game of chasing the carrot on the string will continue for both sides.

Click to expand...

I think it's hard to tell. The North Korean regime is so opaque that it is very difficult for outsiders to understand what is happening behind the scenes. All we really know about Kim Jong-il's youngest son is that he is the anointed successor, and that he is supposedly similar to his father in temperament. But beyond that, it's anybody's guess how he'll react to the United States, or if he has the backing of anyone other than his father.

This is just another example of how the "State Sponsored Terrorists" list is nothing more than a political tool. North Korea is not going to give up either its nuclear power programme (which it needs desperately) nor its nuclear weapons program any time soon.

They aren't going to give up their nukes over this, but putting them back on the terror list would be one of the few effective punishments the United States has at its disposal. If North Korea didn't care about it, they wouldn't have lobbied to be removed from the list a few years ago.

Click to expand...

I always try to get my sarcasm across as plainly as I can, I guess I'll have to try something different than 'riiiggghhhtt'

Why would he say that to the American people? All it would do is demoralize and alarm people...in exchange for absolutely nothing.

Click to expand...

I guess that conversation could of been better conveyed as a NSC meeting in which everyone was being straightforward with one another?

Of course he isn't actually going to come out and say this to the American people.

The reason as to why he should say that to the American people? Transparency. Honesty. I would respect him saying that a hell of a lot more than the continued saber-rattling and endless rhetoric that has been going on for years with no significant changes or concessions from either party.

There are some things the American public does not need to know for matters of national security. Telling them that we don’t have an adequate way to deal with North Korea would not fall in to that category and would not demoralize the country (North Korean leadership already realizes this, so we wouldn't be tipping our hand to them in this regard.)

I do see your point concerning the unnecessary alarming and fear mongering.

Khayembii Communique said:

This is just another example of how the "State Sponsored Terrorists" list is nothing more than a political tool. North Korea is not going to give up either its nuclear power programme (which it needs desperately) nor its nuclear weapons program any time soon.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I see the measure of putting them on back on the terror list similar to a boss writing someone up at work. You take the necessary steps and follow procedure to cover your ass in case you have to fire the worker.

Except in this case there won't be any firing going on. This is an attempt to save face without appearing to be relinquishing anything.

Hmm....one would think that a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" would list states that sponsor international terrorism, not states that did nothing more than scaring The Messiah.

Well, we've now seen the high quality of crisis intervention that we can expect from The Messiah.

Y'all happy now?

But he had a chance to schmooze with his king again this week, aren't you happy?

Hmm....one would think that a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" would list states that sponsor international terrorism, not states that did nothing more than scaring The Messiah.

Well, we've now seen the high quality of crisis intervention that we can expect from The Messiah.

Y'all happy now?

But he had a chance to schmooze with his king again this week, aren't you happy?

Click to expand...

Bush did the same thing with Iraq.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Hmm....one would think that a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" would list states that sponsor international terrorism, not states that did nothing more than scaring The Messiah.

Well, we've now seen the high quality of crisis intervention that we can expect from The Messiah.

Y'all happy now?

But he had a chance to schmooze with his king again this week, aren't you happy?

Click to expand...

I believe this is what was referred to at the start of the post as "partisan bickering." Of course we all have a political stance, but try addressing the OP instead of using juvenile names to describe our president while giving absolutely no insight to the conversation at hand.

Thanks! :2wave:

Bush did the same thing with Iraq.

Click to expand...

To clarify: I was referring to H.W. Bush. Also, Reagan did this as well.

So Bush was right about the Axis of Evil. How sweet it is!

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Hmm....one would think that a list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" would list states that sponsor international terrorism, not states that did nothing more than scaring The Messiah.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list has always been political. There are countries on the list, like Cuba and now North Korea, that have very little if any connection to acts of terrorism. They're on the list because the US government simply doesn't like them. Similarly, there are many US allies who actively ARE involved in terrorism - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being the most obvious ones - who are not on the list.

Personally I'd prefer changing the name of the list to something a little less deceptive than "State Sponsors of Terrorism." I vote for "States We Really Don't Like."

I don't see how a sovereign, identifiable nation can be called a "terrorist". Seems like nothing more than political name calling to me.

Well, this thread made it what, 4 posts before it devolved into partisan bickering? This approach is sure to disinterest other readers who might contribute something worth reading other than the blame it on former president game?

..

It's interesting we have some conservatives against the list of State Sponsered Terrorism against North Korea, but then give a passing to Cuba being on the same list that Regan supported.

Hypocrites? Let's face it the list of State Sponsored Terrorism has ALWAYS been political by BOTH sides. And yet we hear conservatives screaming about it now with Obama and his administration. HYPOCRITES.

Well, this thread made it what, 4 posts before it devolved into partisan bickering? This approach is sure to disinterest other readers who might contribute something worth reading other than the blame it on former president game?

Click to expand...

Where did this happen?

Khayembii Communique said:

Where did this happen?

Click to expand...

"Bush did the same thing with Iraq."


But in all fairness that was a response to Scarecrow's response. But none the less led to more of the same, no productive discussion occurred,no potential outcomes or solutions given.

I just don't see how a reponse of "Bush did the same thing with Iraq" isn't equivalant to a child claming "But he started it!"

"Bush did the same thing with Iraq."

Click to expand...

I later clarified that I was referring to George H.W. Bush and not George W. Bush, and that Reagan also did this. You apparently missed that post.

But in all fairness that was a response to Scarecrow's response. But none the less led to more of the same, no productive discussion occurred,no potential outcomes or solutions given.

I just don't see how a reponse of "Bush did the same thing with Iraq" isn't equivalant to a child claming "But he started it!

Click to expand...

Because I was asserting that the State Sponsors of Terror list has been a political tool for decades and has been used by both democrats and republicans in such a way, thus showing that Scarecrow's partisan bickering is unfounded.