Bush rules out nonaggression treaty with North Korea

[Newsjock]

AP via SF Chronicle

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- President Bush, gathering with Asian leaders, said Sunday the United States has no intention of invading Noth Korea but he ruled out signing a non-aggression treaty to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.

... "We think there's an opportunity to move the process forward and we're going to discuss it with our partners," Bush said. "We will not have a treaty, if that's what you're asking. That's off the table."

Bush said perhaps there were other ways, however, to convince North Korea that the United States would not attack.

more

[DeathvadeR]

1. of course not.. Duh????

We need to tame the middle east before we start floating herds of boats thier way. Like that wouldn't look suspicious???

[Minstrel Boy]

2. "No invasion": check. But did he say

the US has no plans to "liberate" North Korea?

Just wondering.

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. This link/story?

Bush rules out nonaggression treaty with North Korea

TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent Saturday, October 18, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(10-18) 21:43 PDT BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) --

President Bush, gathering with Asian leaders, said Sunday the United States has no intention of invading Noth Korea but he ruled out signing a non-aggression treaty to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Bush said he would talk with Asian leaders about how to defuse nuclear tensions on the Korean peninsula.

"We think there's an opportunity to move the process forward and we're going to discuss it with our partners," Bush said. "We will not have a treaty, if that's what you're asking. That's off the table."


(a little) more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/18/international0043EDT0407.DTL

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Why would you nix a non-agression treaty...

..with a country you don't intend to invade?

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Why would you commit to something

When all nations leave their options open when dealing with hostile powers.

[bpilgrim]

14. because they are asking for it...

and we are supposedly at the negotiation table for starters then you ask would it be worth it to turn down tensions in the region and to get them to allow inspectors back in... besides, treaties are broken all the time when it is in our interest to do so so lets not get overly dramatic about leaving our 'options open'.

:hi:

peace

[Gloria]

5. Obviously has to dispell any of the talk about the Bush Admin. returning

to the Clinton policy.....after Clinton revealed how he warned Bush personally about Bin Laden, what else do you expect from Bush??? Has to re-assert his manliness.....

[pansypoo53219]

7. well,

that should calm things down.

OY FUCKING VAY

[moof]

8. would have been sorta cool though

for the first time in history no one could have told which party to the treaty had the less amount of intent to stick to what the treaty said.

[DivinBreuvage]

16. There is in fact a historical precedent...

In the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939, which both dictators signed knowing full well that it was only an expedient to buy time until each was in a position to sucker-punch the other guy. Unfortunately for the Stalinist nation, the Fascists got there first.

In this case, however, the fact that Bush flatly refused to discuss such a possibility may actually be GOOD news. It seems to me that if the Greatest Warlord of All Time (or his puppetmasters) really intended to launch military action against North Korea he would work to reach an agreement, knowing full well that when the time came an event could be trumped up to make North Korea appear to violate it, thus giving the US the right to retaliation or self-defense (to say nothing of the propaganda value of painting North Korea as the aggressor. It's not as if they haven't given ample proof of being just as touchy and trigger-happy as the Crawford Lawman).

The fact that he's so blunt in his refusal suggests to me that the intent is to keep North Korea off balance and a little more cautious by implying that the US is willing to go to the mat if they cross the line.

Françoise

[DivinBreuvage]

18. Incidentally, the funniest thing Adolf Hitler ever heard...

was a story told by some Foreign Ministry staffers about Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop's birthday. (von Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremberg). The ministry staff had wanted to give him an ornate jeweled casket containing copies of the most important treaties he had signed. However, when it came time to fill up the casket they couldn't find any treaties Germany hadn't broken. Hitler laughed and laughed, slapping his thighs and howling till the tears rolled down his cheeks.

Françoise

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. Just remember

Whatever Chimpy sez, he does the opposite.

[chenGOD]

10. I guess this article was wrong then...

Korea Herald

relevant part about 2/3rds down: "Last week, Powell said his government is considering offering security assurances to North Korea in a "public, written, and multilateral" format."

I guess the Bush administration isn't above saying anything to get South Korea to commit troops (as it looks likely that the South will). Now that the South will, Bush can reveal the PNAC's true intentions...:puke:

[teryang]

13. Word games

This shows that they are stalling and sticking with the tightening the noose strategy in N.Korea. This is consistent with what they do to other recalcitrant countries who oppose their will. What they can't understand is why N.Korea hasn't caved in yet.

[loudnclear]

11. Non-agression= they don't attack us, we don't attack them

So why is this not a good deal? Bush just wants to guarantee that we will attack someone...he really does need a war to justify his very existence.

[JNelson6563]

12. so we have a paranoid dictator

(and at this point I believe he should be paranoid) over in NK and a moron in DC. And the moron has lots and lots of weapons. And he's called Il names, labeled his whole country evil and made a few statements that could easily be construed as threats to NK.

Well, I am hard-pressed to imagine a better inducement for NK to complete their weapons program lickety split. How about you?

To think there are actually people who believe Jr make us "safer".

Julie

[bpilgrim]

15. did we honestly not think that NK would react this way?

and therefore have no other plans and so we are just pushing ahead with plan A...

or

did we calculate that no matter how the rest of the world reacts plan A is multipurposeful in the sense that the more chaos in the world the easier it is for them to justify/sell their RADICAL designs and therefore it could be considered as a 'success' either way.

i fear it is the latter and nothing will take them off course even WMDs going off here and there :scared:

peace

[0007]

17. " we're going to discuss it with our partners,""

sez junior. Besides Israel and UN who are our fucking partners?

[dArKeR]

19. You see the CNN tape of Bush. He can't even say 'peninsula' but at

least he can say 'north'. 'korean' was questionable but we'll give it to him.